The right to practise any profession under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution includes the right not to practise it. The case arose from Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division)’s voluntary closure and the legal conflict over compensation claims under labour laws. Authorities challenged the closure, citing non-compliance with Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Bombay High Court had earlier ruled the closure illegal for not following statutory procedures. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the right to close a business is part of the constitutional right to carry one on. Referring to Excel Wear v. Union of India and Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, the Court stressed that economic liberty must be protected unless restrictions are reasonable and in the public interest.
The Court concluded that business owners have the freedom to decide when to close their operations. However, such decisions must still consider the rights and welfare of employees. While constitutional protection supports voluntary closure, the Court highlighted the need for a balanced approach between economic freedom and labour rights.
