What was the main legal question in Ram Jawaya Kapur?

Whether the State could create a textbook monopoly and if such a monopoly required legislation or could be done by executive action.

Did the Supreme Court find a violation of Article 19(1)(g)?

No. The Court held the petitioners had no fundamental right that was infringed by the Government's textbook policy.

What did the case say about executive power?

Executive power is coextensive with legislative power, subject to the Constitution and any existing law; it can act unless a law requires legislation.

Why is this case taught in constitutional law?

It clarifies the scope of executive power in India and when the Government may act without a specific statute.

What was the practical impact on publishers?

Publishers lost the open market for school textbooks; the State controlled selection and copyrights with fixed royalties to authors.

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab

Easy English classroom explainer of the 1955 Supreme Court decision on executive power and the State’s textbook policy.

Supreme Court of India 1955 AIR 1955 SC 549 Constitutional Law Bench of 5 6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi · Published: October 23, 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: executive power, Article 19(1)(g), textbook monopoly SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 31, Punjab education policy, AIR 1955 SC 549

Quick Summary

In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1955 SC 549), the Supreme Court explained how far the executive can go without a specific law. The State moved to control school textbooks in Punjab. Publishers argued their right to trade was hit. The Court held no fundamental right was violated and clarified that executive power can act so long as it does not break the Constitution or any law.

Issues

Did the State’s textbook policy violate the petitioners’ fundamental rights, especially the right to trade under Article 19(1)(g)?
Even if a monopoly was possible, could the State create it by executive action alone, or was legislation necessary?

Rules

Executive power is generally coextensive with legislative power; it can act unless the Constitution or an existing law says otherwise.
Limits arise from fundamental rights and from statutes. If an action curtails a guaranteed right, it must be justified under the Constitution.
A shift in governance needs a broader view of executive functions, not tied only to what is expressly legislated.

Facts (Timeline)

Pre-1950: Punjab used an “elective system.” Publishers prepared textbooks; Government approved several per subject; schools chose from the list. Prices, size, content were fixed by the Government.

1950: Zones created; for some subjects the Government itself prepared and published books. For others, only one book per subject per class was selected. A 5% royalty was imposed.

9 Aug 1952: New policy invited only authors, not publishers. Copyright vested in the Government; selected authors received 5% royalty.

Article 32 Petition: Six petitioners (Uttar Chand Kapur & Sons group) alleged the policy effectively removed them from the market and violated their rights.

Timeline illustration of changes to Punjab textbook policy

Arguments

Appellants (Publishers)

Policy ousted them from business; violated Article 19(1)(g).
State’s move created a monopoly that needed a law under Article 19(6).
Loss of expected customers amounted to deprivation of property (Article 31).

Respondent (State)

Executive can organise education policy to secure quality and uniformity.
No fundamental right to be selected as a supplier to Government-approved lists.
Mere loss of business opportunity is not “property” under Article 31(2).

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The policy did not infringe a fundamental right of the petitioners. Since Article 19(1)(g) was not violated, the question of justifying a monopoly under Article 19(6) did not arise. The loss of possible customers was not “property,” so Article 31(2) on compensation did not apply.

Judgment illustration for Ram Jawaya Kapur case

Ratio Decidendi

Executive power extends to matters where the Legislature may make laws, subject to constitutional limits and existing statutes.
Government may act by executive order when no law forbids and no statute specifically requires legislation first.
Business expectations do not equal a legal right or property interest.

Why It Matters

This case is a foundation for understanding Articles 73/162 and the reach of executive power at the Union and State levels. It is frequently cited when the Government takes action via policy circulars without a dedicated statute.

Key Takeaways

Executive can act where law could be made, unless stopped by the Constitution or a statute.
No fundamental right is breached merely because the market structure changes by policy.
Loss of potential customers is not “property.”
Monopoly questions under Article 19(6) arise only if a fundamental right is first infringed.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “EXEC-OK” — EXECutive may act, Only blocked by law, no fundamental right Knockout.

Step 1: Ask: is there a law or the Constitution that forbids this executive act?
Step 2: If no, did it actually infringe a fundamental right?
Step 3: If yes, check if it is saved (e.g., Article 19(6)). If no FR breach, stop.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the State’s textbook policy an unlawful monopoly or violation of Article 19(1)(g), and did it require legislation?

Rule

Executive power is coextensive with legislative power, limited by the Constitution and existing laws; FR breach must be shown first.

Application

Policy reorganised textbooks for quality and uniformity. It did not legally bar trade rights nor take property; at most it reduced opportunities.

Conclusion

No fundamental right violated; Article 19(6) not triggered; executive action was valid.

Glossary

Executive Power: Power of the Government to act and administer policies within constitutional and legal limits.
Monopoly (State): Exclusive control by the State over a trade or service; may require constitutional justification if it restricts rights.
Article 19(1)(g): Right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 31(2) (Repealed): Earlier provision on compulsory acquisition of property with compensation.