Case: Rustom Cowasjee Cooper & Another Vs. Union of India

Shah, J. (For Majority):- 1. Rustom Cavasji Cooper - hereinafter called `the petitioner - holds shares in the Central Bank of India Ltd., the Bank of Baroda Ltd., and the Bank of India Ltd., and has accounts - current and fixed deposit - with those Banks; he is also a Director of the Central Bank of India Ltd. By these petitions he claims a declaration that the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 promulgated on July 19, 1969, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 which replaced the Ordinance with certain modifications impair his rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, and are on that account invalid. 2. In India there was till 1949, no comprehensive legislation governing banking business and banking institutions. The Central Legislature enacted the Banking Companies Act 10 of 1949 (later called "The Banking Regulation Act") to consolidate and amend the law relating to certain matters concerning banking. By Section 5 (b) of that Act, "banking" was defined as meaning "the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment, of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise"; and by Section 5 (c) a "banking company" meant "any company which transacts the business of banking in India". By Section 6 it was enacted that in addition to the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) a banking company may engage in one or more of the forms of business specified in clauses (a) to (o) of sub-s. (1). By sub-s. (2) of Section 6 banking companies were prohibited from engaging "in any form of business other than those referred to in sub-section (1)". The Act applied to commercial banks, and enacted provisions, amongst others, relating to prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions on certain forms of employment; minimum paid up capital and reserves; regulation of voting rights of shareholders and election of Board of Directors; prohibition of charge on unpaid capital; restriction on payment of dividend; maintenance of a percentage of assets; return of unclaimed deposits; and accounts and balance-sheets. It also enacted provisions authorising the Reserve Bank to issue directions to and for trial of proceedings against the Banks and for speedy disposal of winding up proceedings against the Banks. 3. The Banking Regulation Act was amended by Act 58 of 1968, to give effect to the policy of "social control" over commercial banks. Act 58 of 1968 provided for reconstitution of the Boards of Directors of commercial banks with a Chairman who had practical experience of the working of a Bank or financial, economic and business administration, and with a membership not less than 51 per cent consisting of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in accountancy, agriculture and rural economy, banking, co-operation, economics, finance, law and small-scale industry. The Act also provided that no loans shall be granted to any Director of the Bank or to any concern in which he is interested as Managing Director, Manager, employee, or guarantor or partner or in which he holds substantial interest. The Reserve Bank was invested with power to give directions to commercial banks and to appoint directors or observers in the interest of depositors or proper management of the Banking Companies, or in the interest of Banking policy (which expression was defined by Section 5 (ca) as "any policy which is specified from time to time by the Reserve Bank in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth, having due regard to the interests of the depositors, volume of deposits and other resources of the bank and the need for equitable allocation and the efficient use of these deposits and resources". The Reserve Bank was also invested with power to remove managerial and other personnel from office and to appoint additional directors, and to issue directions prohibiting certain activities in relation to Banking Companies. The Central Government was given power to acquire the business of any Bank if it failed repeatedly to comply with any direction issued by the Reserve Bank under certain specific provision in regard to any matter concerning the affairs of the Bank and if acquisition of the Bank was considered necessary in the interest of the depositors or in the interest of the banking policy or for the better provision of credit generally or of credit to any particular section of the community or in a particular area. 4. During the last two decades the Reserve Bank reorganised the banking structure. A number of units which accounted for a small section of the banking business were amalgamated under directions of the Reserve Bank. The total number of commercial banking institutions was reduced from 566 in 1951 to 89 in 1969 - 73 scheduled and 16 non-scheduled. 5. In exercise of the authority conferred by the State Bank of India Act 23 of 1955 the undertaking of the former Imperial bank of India was taken over by a public corporation controlled by the Central Government. The State Bank took over seven subsidiaries under authority conferred by Act 38 of 1959. There were in June 1969, 14 commercial banks operating in India each having deposits exceeding Rs.50 crores. The following is an analysis of the commercial banking structure in India in June 1969: ?TABLE? *Only 13 were operating. 6. Late in the afternoon of July 19, 1969 (which was a Saturday) the Vice-President (acting as President) promulgated, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution, Ordinance 8 of 1969 transferring to and vesting the undertaking of 14 named commercial banks in corresponding new banks set up under the Ordinance. The long title of the Ordinance read as follows: "An Ordinance to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the undertakings of certain banking companies in order to serve better the needs of development of the economy in conformity with national policy and objectives and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." By Section 2 "banking company" was defined as not including a foreign company within the meaning of Section 591 of the Companies Act, 1956. An "existing bank" was defined by Section 2(b) as meaning "a banking company specified in column 1 of the First Schedule, being a company the deposits of which, as shown in the return as on the last Friday of June, 1969, furnished to the Reserve bank under Section 27 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, were not less than rupees fifty crores". In the Schedule to the Act were included the names of fourteen commercial banks: (1) The Central Bank of India Ltd. (2) The Bank of India Ltd. (3) The Punjab National Bank Ltd. (4) The Bank of Baroda Ltd. (5) The United Commercial Bank Ltd. (6) Canara Bank Ltd. (7) United Bank of India Ltd. (8) Dena Bank Ltd. (9) Syndicate Bank Ltd. (10)The Union Bank of India Ltd. (11)Allahabad Bank Ltd. (12)The Indian Bank Ltd. (13)The Bank of Maharashtra Ltd. (14)The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. These banks were hereinafter referred to as the named banks. A "corresponding new bank" was defined in relation to an existing bank as meaning "the body corporate specified against such bank in column 2 of the First Schedule". By Section 2(g) it was provided that the words and expressions used in the Ordinance and not defined, but defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, had the meaning respectively assigned to them in that Act. Thereby the definitions of "banking" and "banking company" in Section 5 (b) and Section 5 (c) of the Banking Regulation Act were incorporated in the Ordinance. 7. The principal provisions of the Ordinance were. - (1) Corporations styled in the ordinance "corresponding new banks" shall be established, each such corporation having paid-up capital equal to the paid-up capital of the named bank in relation to which it is a corresponding new bank. The entire capital of the new bank shall stand vested in the Central Government. The corresponding new banks shall be authorised to carry on and transact the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and also to engage in one or more forms of business specified in sub-section(1) of Section 6 of that Act. The Chairman of the named bank holding office immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance shall be the Custodian of the corresponding new bank. The general superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of a corresponding bank shall be vested in the Custodian, who shall be the chief executive officer of that bank. (2) The undertaking within or without India or every named bank on the commencement of the Ordinance shall stand transferred to and vested in the corresponding new bank. The expression "undertaking" shall include all assets, rights powers, authorities and privileges, and all property movable and immovable, cash balances, reserve fund investments and all other rights and interests arising out of such property as are immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance in the ownership, possession, power or control of the named bank in relation to the undertaking, including all books of accounts, registers, records and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto. It shall also include all borrowings, liabilities and obligations of whatever kind then subsisting of the named bank in relation to the undertaking. If according to the law of any foreign country, the provisions of the Ordinance by themselves do not effectively transfer or vest any asset or liability situated in that country in the corresponding new bank the affairs of the named bank in relation to such asset or liability shall stand entrusted to the chief executive officer of the corresponding new bank with authority to take steps to wind up the affairs of that bank. All contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements, powers of attorney, grants of legal representation and other instruments of whatever nature subsisting or having effect immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance, and to which the named bank is a party or which are in favour of the named bank shall be of as full force and effect against or in favour of the corresponding new bank, and be enforced or acted upon as fully and effectively as if in the place of the named bank the corresponding new bank is a party thereto or as if they are issued in favour of the corresponding new bank. In pending suits or other proceedings by or against the named bank, the corresponding new bank shall be substituted in those suits or proceedings. Any reference to any named bank in any law other than the Ordinance, or in any contract or other instrument shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding new bank in relation to it. (3) The Central Government shall have power to frame a scheme for carrying out the provisions of the Act, and for that purpose to make provisions for the corresponding new banks relating to capital structure, constitution of the Board of Directors, manner of payment of compensation to the shareholders, and matters incidental, consequential and supplemental. Corresponding new banks shall also be guided in the discharge of their functions by such directions in regard to matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give. (4) On the commencement of the Ordinance, every person holding office as Chairman, Managing Director, or other Director of a named bank, shall be deemed to have vacated office, and all officers and other employees of a named bank shall become officers or other employees of the corresponding new banks. Every named bank shall stand dissolved on such date as the Central Government may by notification in that behalf appoint. (5) The Central Government shall give compensation to the named banks determined according to the principles set out in Second Schedule, that is, to say,- (a) where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be determined in accordance with such agreement. (b) where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall refer the matter to the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date on which the Central Government and the existing bank fail to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation. Compensation so determined shall be paid to each named bank in marketable Central Government securities. For the purpose of determining compensation, Tribunals shall be set up by the Central Government with certain powers of a Civil Court. (6) The Central Government shall have power to make such orders not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordinance which may be necessary for the purpose of removing defects. 8. Under the Ordinance the entire undertaking of every named commercial bank was taken over by the corresponding new bank, and all assets and contractual rights and all obligations to which the named bank was subject stood transferred to the corresponding new bank. The Chairman and the Directors of the Banks vacated their respective offices. To the named banks survived only the right to receive compensation to be determined in the manner prescribed. Compensation, unless settled by agreement, was to be determined by the Tribunal, and was to be given in marketable Government securities. The entire business of each named bank was accordingly taken over, its Chief Executive Officer ceased to hold office and assumed the office of Custodian of the corresponding new bank, its directors vacated office; and the services of the administrative and other staff stood transferred to the corresponding new bank. The named bank had thereafter no assets, no business, and no managerial, administrative or other staff; it was incompetent to use the word "Bank" in its name, because of the provisions contained in Section 7 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and was liable to be dissolved by a notification of the Central Government. 9. Petitions challenging the competence of the President to promulgate the Ordinance were lodged in this Court on July 21, 1969. But before the petitions could be heard by this Court, a Bill to enact provisions relating to acquisition and transfer of undertakings of the existing banks was introduced in the Parliament, and was enacted on August 9, 1969, as "The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969". The long title of the Act was in terms identical with the long title of the Ordinance. By sub-section (1) of Sec. 27 of the Act, Ordinance 8 of 1969 was repealed. In the First Schedule were included the names of the 14 banks named in the Ordinance in juxtaposition with the names of the corresponding new banks. By sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Act came into force on July 19, 1969, and the undertaking of every named bank was deemed, with effect from the date, to have vested in the corresponding new bank. By Section 27 (2), (3) and (4) actions taken or things done under the Ordinance inconsistent with the provisions of the Act were not to be of any force or effect, and no right, privilege, obligation or liability was to be deemed to have been acquired, accrued or incurred under the Ordinance. 10. The general scheme of the Ordinance relating to the transfer to and vesting in the corresponding new bank of the undertaking of each named bank, payment of compensation, and management of the corresponding new bank, remained unaltered. The Act departed from the Ordinance in certain matters; (1) Under the Act the named banks remain in existence for certain purposes and they are not liable to be dissolved by order of the Government. If under the laws in force in any foreign country it is not permissible for a Banking Company, owned or controlled by Government, to carry on the business of banking in that country, the assets, rights, powers, authorities and privileges and property, movable and immovable, cash balances and investments of any named bank operating in that country shall not vest in the corresponding new bank. The directors of the named banks shall remain in office and may register transfers or transmission of shares; arrive at an agreement about the amount of compensation payable under the Act or appearing before the Tribunal for obtaining a determination as to the amount of compensation; distribute to shareholders the amount of compensation received by the Bank under the Act for the acquisition of its undertaking; carrying on the business of banking in any country outside India if under the law in force in that country any bank, owned or controlled by Government, is prohibited from carrying on the business of banking there; and carry on any business other than the business of banking. The Central Government has power to authorise the corresponding new bank to advance the amount required by the named bank in connection with the functions which the directors may perform. Reference to any named bank in any law, or in any contract or other instrument shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding new bank in relation to it, but not in cases where the named bank may carry on any business and in relation to that business. (2) Principles for determination of compensation and the manner of payment are modified. Interim compensation may be paid to a named bank if it agrees to distribute to its shareholders in accordance with their rights and interests. A major change is made in the principles for determining compensation set out in Sch. II. By Explanation I to Cl. (e) of Part I of Sch. II, the value of any land or buildings to be taken into account in valuing the assets is to be the market value of the land or buildings, but where such market value exceeds the "ascertained value", that "ascertained value" is to be taken into account, and by Explanation II the "ascertained value" of any building wholly occupied on the date of the commencement of the Act is to be twelve times the amount of the annual rent or the rent for which the building may reasonably be expected to be let out from year to year, and reduced by one-sixth of the amount of the rent on account of maintenance and repairs, annual premium paid to insure the building against risk of damage or destruction, annual charge, if any, on the building, ground rent, interest on any mortgage or other capital charge on the building, interest on borrowed capital if the building has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or re-constructed, with borrowed capital, and the sums paid on account of land revenue or other taxes in respect of such building. (3) The Central Government may reconstitute any corresponding new bank into two or more corporations; amalgamate any corresponding new bank or with another banking institution; transfer the whole or any part of the undertaking of a corresponding new bank to any other banking institution; or transfer the whole or any part of the undertaking of any other banking institution to a corresponding new bank. The Board of Directors of the corresponding new banks are to consist of representatives of the depositors of the corresponding new bank, employees of such banks, farmers, workers and artisans to be elected in the prescribed manner and of other persons as the Central Government may appoint. (4) The profits remaining after making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation in assets, contributions to staff and superannuation funds and all other matters for which provision is necessary under any law, the corresponding new bank shall transfer the balance of profits to the Central Government. (5) Provision of law relating to winding up of corporations do not apply to the corresponding new banks, and a corresponding new bank may be ordered to be liquidated only by the order of the Central Government. 11. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Ordinance and the Act on the following principal grounds: I. The Ordinance promulgated in exercise of the power under Article 123 of the Constitution was invalid, because the condition precedent to the exercise of the power did not exist; II. That in enacting the Act the Parliament encroached upon the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and to that extent the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament; III. That by enactment of the Act, fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14, 19 (1) (f) and (g) and 31 (2) are impaired; IV. That by the Act the guarantee of freedom of trade under Article 301 is violated; and V. That in any event retrospective operation given to Act 22 of 1969 is ineffective, since there was no valid Ordinance in existence. The provision in the Act retrospectively validating infringement of the fundamental rights of citizens was not within the competence of the Parliament. That sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section II and Section 26 are invalid.12. The Attorney-General contended that the petitions are not maintainable, because no fundamental right of the petitioner is directly impaired by the enactment of the Ordinance and the Act, or by any action taken thereunder. He submitted that the petitioner who claims to be a shareholder, director and holder of deposit and current accounts with the Banks is not the owner of the property of the undertaking taken over by the corresponding new banks and is on that account incompetent to maintain the petitions complaining that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution were impaired. 13. A company registered under the Companies Act is a legal person, separate and distinct from its individual members. Property of the Company is not the property of the shareholders. A shareholders has merely an interest in the Company arising under its Articles of Association, measured by a sum of money for the purpose of liability, and by a share in the profit. Again a director of a Company is merely its agent for the purpose of management. The holder of a deposit account in a Company is its creditor: he is not the owner of any specific fund lying with the Company. A shareholder, a depositor or a director may not therefore, be entitled to move a petition for infringement of the rights of the Company, unless by the action impugned by him, his rights are also infringed. 14. By a petition praying for a writ against infringement of fundamental rights,except in a case where the petition is for a writ of habeas corpus and probably for infringement of the guarantees under Articles 17, 23 and 24, the petitioner may seek relief to respect of his own rights and not of others. The shareholder of a Company, it is true, is not the owner of its assets; he has merely a right to participate in the profits of the Company subject to the contract contained in the Articles of Association. But on that account the petitions will not fail. A measure executive or legislative may impair the rights of the Company alone, and not of its shareholders; it may impair the rights of the shareholders and not of the Company: it may impair the rights of the shareholders as well as of the Company. Jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief cannot be denied, when by State action the rights of the individual shareholder are impaired, if that action impairs the rights of the Company as well. The test in determining whether the shareholders right is impaired is not formal; it is essentially qualitative; if the State action impairs the right of the shareholders as well as of the Company, the Court will not, concentrating merely upon the technical operation of the action, deny itself jurisdiction to grant relief. 15. The petitioner claims that by the Act and by the Ordinance the rights guaranteed to him under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution are impaired. He says that the Act and the Ordinance are without legislative competence in that they interfere with the guarantee of freedom of trade and are not made in the public interest; that the Parliament had no legislative competence to enact the Act and the President had no power to promulgate the Ordinance, because the subject-matter of the Act and the Ordinance is (partially at least) within the State List; and that the Act and Ordinance are invalid because they vest the undertaking of the named banks in the new corporations without a public purpose and without setting out principles and the basis for determination and payment of a just equivalent for the property expropriated. He says that in consequence of the hostile discrimination practiced by the State the value of his investment in the shares is substantially reduced, his right to receive dividend from his investment has ceased, and he has suffered great financial loss, he is deprived of the rights as a shareholder to carry on business through the agency of the Company, and that in respect of the deposits the obligations of the corresponding new banks not of his choice are substituted without his consent.16. In Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., 1954 SCR 674 = (AIR 1954 SC 119 ) this Court held that a preference shareholder of a company is competent to maintain a suit challenging the validity of the "Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance" 2 of 1950 (which was later replaced by Act 27 of 1950), which deprived the Company of its property without payment of compensation within the meaning of Article 31, Mahajan, J., observed: "The plaintiff and the other preference shareholders are in imminent danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of the enforcement of this Ordinance, the direct injury being the amount of the call that they are called upon to pay and the consequent forfeiture of their shares." Das, J., in the same case examined the matter in some detail and observed at p. 722 (of SCR)=(at pp. 134-135 of AIR): "The impugned Ordinance * * directly affects the preference shareholders by imposing on them this liability, or the risk of it, and gives them a sufficient interest to challenge the validity of the Ordinance, * * Certainly he can show that the Ordinance under which these persons have been appointed was beyond the legislative competence of the authority which made it or that the Ordinance had not been duly promulgated. If he can, with a view to destroy the locus standi of the persons who have made the call raise the question of the invalidity of the Ordinance * * , I can see no valid reason why, for the self-same purpose, he should not be permitted to challenge the validity of the Ordinance on the ground of its unconstitutionality for the breach of the fundamental rights of the company or of other persons." A similar view was also taken in Chiranjit Lal Chowduri v. Union of India, 1950 SCR 869 = (AIR 1951 SC 41 ) by Mukherjea, J., at p. 899 (of SCR) = (at pp. 52-53 of AIR), by Fazl Ali, J., at p. 876 (of SCR) = (at p. 44 of AIR), by Patanjali Shastri, J., at p. 889 of SCR)=(at p.49 of AIR) and by Das, J., at p. 922 (of SCR)=(at pp.61-62 of AIR). 17. The judgment of this Court in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, (1964) 4 SCR 99 = (AIR 1963 SC 1811 ) has no bearing on this question. In that case in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the State Trading Corporation challenged the infringement of its right to hold property and to carry on business under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, and this Court opined that the Corporation not being a citizen was incompetent to enforce the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Nor has the judgment in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 885 = (AIR 1965 SC 40 ) any bearing on the question arising in these petitions. In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a Company challenging the levy of sales-tax by the state of Bihar, two shareholders were also impleaded as petitioners. It was urged on behalf of the shareholders that in substance the interests of the Company and of the shareholders were identical and the shareholders were entitled to maintain the petition. The Court rejected that contention, observing that what the Company could not achieve directly, it could not relying upon the doctrine of "lifting the veil" achieve indirectly. The petitioner seeks in the case to challenge the infringement of his own rights and not of the Banks of which he is a shareholder and a director and with which he as accounts - current and fixed deposit. 18. It was urged that in any event the guarantee of freedom of trade does not occur in Part III of the Constitution, and the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a petition for breach of that guarantee in this Court. But the petitioner does not seek by these petitions to enforce the guarantee of freedom of trade and commerce in Article 301: he claims that in enacting the Act the Parliament has violated a constitutional restriction imposed by Part XIII on its legislative power and in determining the extent to which his fundamental freedoms are impaired, the statute which the Parliament is incompetent to enact must be ignored. 19. It is not necessary to consider whether Article 31A (1)(d) of the Constitution bars the petitioners claim to enforce his rights as a director. The Act prima facie does not (though the Ordinance purported to) seek to extinguish or modify the right of the petitioner as a director:it seeks to take away expressly the right of the named Banks to carry on banking business, while reserving their right to carry on business other than banking. Assuming that he is not entitled to set up his right to enforce his guaranteed rights as a director, the petition will not still fail.The Preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General against the maintainability of the petitions must fail. I. Validity of Ordinance 8 of 1969 - 20. Power to issue Ordinance is by Article 123 of the Constitution vested in the President. Article 123 provides: "(1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require. (2) An Ordinance promulgated under this Article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, but every such Ordinance - (a) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and (b) may be withdrawn at any time by the President. Explanation.- Where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause. (3) If and so far as an Ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void." 21. Under the Constitution, the President being the constitutional head, normally acts in all matters including the promulgation of an Ordinance on the advice of his Council of Ministers. Whether in a given case the President may decline to be guided by the advice of his Council of Ministers is a matter which need not detain us. The Ordinance is promulgated in the name of the President and in a constitutional sense on his satisfaction: it is in truth promulgated on the advice of his Council of Ministers and on their satisfaction. The President is under the Constitution not the repository of the legislative power of the Union, but with a view to meet extraordinary situations demanding immediate enactment of laws, provision is made in the Constitution investing the President with power to legislate by promulgating Ordinances. 22.Power to promulgate such Ordinance as the circumstances appear to the President to require is exercised - (a) when both Houses of Parliament are not in session; (b) the provision intended to be made is within the competence of the Parliament to enact; and (c) the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action. Exercise of the power is strictly conditioned. The clause relating to the satisfaction is composite: the satisfaction relates to the existence of circumstances, as well as to the necessity to take immediate action on account of those circumstances. Determination by the President of the existence of circumstances and the necessity to take immediate action on which the satisfaction depends, is not declared final. 23. The Attorney-General contended that the condition of satisfaction of the President in both the branches is purely subjective and the Union of India is under no obligation to disclose the existence of, or to justify the circumstances of the necessity to take immediate action. He relied upon the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Bhagat Singh v. King Emperor, 58 Ind App 169 = (AIR 1931 PC 111 ); King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sharma, 72 Ind App 57 = (AIR 1945 PC 48 ); and upon a decision of the Federal Court in Lakhi Narayan Das v. Province of Bihar, 1949 FCR 693 = (AIR 1950 FC 59) which interpreted the analogous provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, conferring upon the Governor-General in the first two cases, and upon the Governor of a Province in the last case, power to issue Ordinances. He also relied upon the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Hubli Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Province of Bombay, 76 Ind App 57 = (AIR 1949 PC 136 ). 24. The Attorney-General said that investment of legislative power upon the President being an incident of the division of sovereign functions of the Union and a "matter of high policy", the expression "the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action" is incorporated as a guidance and not as a condition of the exercise of power. He invited our attention to the restraints inherent in the Constitution on the exercise of the power to promulgate Ordinance clauses (1) and (2) of Art 74; clauses (3) and (4) of Article 75 and Article 361, and submitted that the rule applicable to the interpretation of Parliamentary Statutes conferring authority upon offices of the State to Act in a prescribed manner on being satisfied about the existence of certain circumstances is inept in determining the true perspective of the power of the head of the State in situations of emergency. 25. On the other hand, Mr. Palkhivala contended that the President is not made by Article 123 the final arbiter of the existence of the conditions on which the power to promulgate an Ordinance may be exercised. Power to promulgate an Ordinance being conditional, counsel urged, this Court in the absence of a provision - express or necessarily implicit in the Constitution - to the contrary, is competent to determine whether the power was exercised not for a collateral purpose, but on relevant circumstances which, prima facie, establish the necessity to take immediate action. Counsel submitted that the rules applicable to the interpretation of statutes conferring power exercisable on satisfaction of the specified circumstances upon the President and upon officers of the State, are not different. The nature of the power to perform an official act where the authority is of a certain opinion, or that in his view certain circumstances exist or that he has reasonable grounds to believe, or that he has reasons to believe, or that he is satisfied springing from a constitutional provision is in no manner different from a similar power under a Parliamentary Statute, and no greater sanctity may attach to the exercise of the power merely because the source of the power is in the Constitution and not in a Parliamentary Statute. There is, it was urged, nothing in the constitution scheme which supports the contention that the clause relating to satisfaction is not a condition of the exercise of power. 26. Counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in Barium Chemical Ltd. v. Company Law Board, 1966 Supp SCR 311 = (AIR 1967 SC 295 ) and Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, AIR 1969 SC 707 ; upon the decisions of the House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1968) 1 All ER 694; and of the Judicial Committee of Duryappah v. Fernando, 1967 AC 337; Nakkuda Ali v. M. F. De S. Jayarathne, 1951 AC 66; Ross-Clunis v. Papadopoullos, 1958-2 All ER 23 and contended that the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Bhagat Singhs case, 58 Ind App 169 = (AIR 1931 PC 111 ) and Benoari Lal Sharmas case, 72 Ind App 57 = (AIR 1945 PC 48 ) interpreted a provision which was in substance different from the provision of Article 123, that the decision in Lakhi Narayan Dass case, 1949 FCR 693 = (AIR 1950 FC 59) merely followed the two judgments of the Judicial Committee and since the status of the President under the Constitution qua the Parliament is not the same as the constitutional status of the Governor-General under the Government of India Act, 1935 the decisions cited have no bearing on the interpretation of Art. 123.27. The Ordinance has been repealed by Act 22 of 1969 and the question of its validity is now academic.It may assume significance only if we hold that Act 22 of 1969 is valid. Since the Act is in our view invalid for reasons hereinafter stated, we accede to the submission of the Attorney-General that we need express no opinion in this case on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court to examine whether the condition relating to satisfaction of the President was fulfilled. II. Authority of Parliament to enact Act 22 of 1969- 28. On behalf of the petitioner it is urged that the Act is not within the legislative power of the Parliament and that, in any event, to the extent to which it vests in the corresponding new banks the assets of business other than banking, it trenches upon the authority of the State Legislature, and is on that account void. The relevant legislative entries in the Seventh Schedule and the constitutional provisions which have a bearing on the question of acquisition and taking over of undertaking of a bank may first be read. 29. The Parliament has exclusive legislative power with respect to "Banking" Entry 45 List I; "Incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading Corporations including banking, insurance and financial corporations, but not including co-operative societies"; Entry 43 List I; and "Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not, with objects not confined to one State, but not including Universities": Entry 44 List I. 30. The State have exclusive legislative authority with respect to the following subjects in List II: Entry 26 - "Trade and commerce within the State, subject to the provisions of entry 33 of List III." Entry 30 - "Money-lending and money-lenders; relief of agricultural indebtedness." 31. The Parliament and the States have concurrent legislative authority with respect to the following subjects in List III: Entry 33 - "Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of,- (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products; (b) foodstuffs, including edible oil-seeds and oils; (c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and (e) raw jute." Entry 42- "Acquisition and requisition of property." 32. The argument raised by Mr. Setalvad, intervening on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, that the Parliament is competent to enact Act 22 of 1969, because the subject-matter of the Act is "with respect to" regulation of trading corporations and matters subsidiary and incidental thereto, and on that account is covered in its entirety by Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, cannot be upheld. Entry 43 deals with incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations including banking companies. Law regulating the business of a corporation is not a law with respect to regulation of a corporation. In List I entries expressly relating to trade and commerce are Entries 41 and 42. Again several entries in List I relate to activities commercial in character. Entry 45 "Banking"; Entry 46 "Bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and other like instruments", Entry 47 "Insurance"; Entry 48 "Stock exchanges and future markets"; Entry 49 "Patents, inventions and designs". There are several entries relating to activities commercial as well as non-commercial in List II - Entry 21 "Fisheries"; Entry 24 "Industries x x x"; Entry 25 "Gas and Gas works"; Entry 26 "Trade and commerce"; Entry 30 "Money-lending and money-lenders"; Entry 31 "Inns and Inn-keeping"; Entry 33 "Theatres and dramatic performances, cinemas etc.". We are unable to accede to the argument that the State Legislatures are competent to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of those entries only when the commercial activities are carried on by individuals and not when they are carried on by Corporations. 32-A. The object of Act 22 of 1969 is to transfer the undertaking of each named bank and to vest it in the corresponding new bank set up with authority to carry on banking and other business. Each such corresponding new bank is controlled by the Central Government of which the entire capital is to stand vested in and allotted to the Central Government. The principal provisions of the Act which effectuate that object relate to setting up of "corresponding new banks" as statutory corporations to carry on and transact the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and one or more other forms of business specified in Section 6 (1) of that Act, with power to acquire and hold property for the purpose of the business, and to dispose of the same; administration of the corresponding new banks as institutions carrying on banking and other business; the undertaking of each named bank in its entirety stands transferred to and vested in a new corporation set up for that purpose; principles for determination of compensation and method of payment thereof to each named bank for transfer of its undertaking; and that the named bank may not carry on banking business, but may carry out business other than banking. 32-B. Mr. Palkhivala submitted that the Parliament may legislate in respect of the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and matters incidental thereto, and also for acquisition of that part of the undertaking of each named bank which relates to the business of banking, but not in respect of any other business not incidental to banking in which the named bank was engaged prior to July 19, 1969, for the power to legislate in respect of such other business falls within Entry 26 of List II. As a corollary thereto, counsel submitted that power to legislate in respect of acquisition under Entry 42 of List III may be exercised by the Parliament only for effectuating legislation under a head falling in List I or List III of the Seventh Schedule.32-C. It is necessary to determine the true scope of "banking" in Entry 45 List I, the meaning of the expression "property", and the limitations on the power of the Parliament to legislate in respect of acquisition of property in Entry 42, List III. Matters not in contest may be eliminated. Power to legislate for setting up corporations to carry on banking and other business and to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to provide for administration of the corporations is conferred upon the Parliament by Entries 43, 44 and 45 of the first list. Power to enact that the named banks shall not carry on banking business (as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act) is incidental to the power to legislate in respect of banking. Power to legislate for determination of compensation and method of payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the assets of the named banks, in so far as it relates to banking business is also within the power of the Parliament. 33.The expression "banking" is not defined in any Indian statute except the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It may be recalled that by Section 5 (b) of that Act "banking" means "the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft or otherwise". The definition did not include other commercial activities which a banking institution may engage in. 34. In support of his contention Mr. Palkhivala relied upon the observation of Lord Porter in Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales, 1950 AC 235 that banking consists of the creation and transfer of credit, the making of loans, purchase and disposal of investments and other kindred transactions; and upon the statement in Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 2, Article 270 at pp. 150 and 151 that: "A banker is an individual partnership or corporation, whose sole or predominating business is banking, that is the receipt of money on current or deposit account and the payment of cheques drawn by and the collection of cheques paid by a customer", and in the foot-note (g) at p. 151 that: "Numerous other functions are undertaken at the present day by banks such as the payment of domiciled bills, custody of valuables, discounting bills, executor and trustee business, or acting in relation to stock exchange transactions, and banks have functions under certain financial legislation. X x x. These functions are not strictly banking business."35. The Attorney-General said that the expression "banking" in Entry 45 List I means all form of business which since the introduction of western methods of banking in India, banking institutions have been carrying on in addition to banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, and on that account all forms of business described in Section 6 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act in clauses (a) to (n) are, if carried on in addition to the "hard-core of banking", banking and the Parliament is competent to legislate in respect of that business under Entry 45, List I. In support of his contention that apart from the business of accepting money from the public for lending or investment, and withdrawable by cheque, draft or otherwise, banking includes many allied business activities which banking institutions engaged in, the Attorney-General invited our attention to clause 21 of the Charter of the Bank of Bengal (Act VI of 1839); Sec. 27 of Act 4 of 1862; to Sections 36 and 37 of the Presidency Banks Act XI of 1876; to Section 91 (15) of the British North America Act; to Pagets Law of Banking, 7th Edn., at p. 5; to the standard form of memorandum of association of a Banking Company in Palmers Company Precedents Form 138; and to the Statement of Objects and Reasons in support of the Bill which was enacted as the Indian Companies (Amendment) Act, 1936. 36. The Charter of the Bank of Bengal, the Presidency Banks Act 4 of 1862, Ch. X-A of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as incorporated by the Indian Companies (Amendment) Act, 1936, merely described the business which a banking institution could carry on. It was not intended thereby to include those activities within the expression "banking". The Acts exacted after the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, also support that inference. Under Section 33 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the State Bank is entitled to carry on diverse business activities beside banking. Similarly the Banks subsidiary to the State Bank were by Section 36 of the Act 38 of 1959 to Act as agents of the State Bank, and also to carry on and transact business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and were also competent to engage in such one or more other forms of business specified in Section 6 (1) of that Act. These provisions do not aid in construing the Entry "Banking" in Entry 45 List I. 37. In modern times in India as elsewhere, to attract business, banking establishments render and compete in rendering, a variety of miscellaneous services for their constituents.If the test for determining what "banking" means in the constitutional entry is any commercial activity which bankers at a given time engage in, great obscurity will be introduced in the content of that expression. The coverage of constitutional entry in a Federal Constitution which carves out a field of legislation must depend upon a more satisfactory basis. 38.The legislative entry in List I of the Seventh Schedule is "Banking" and not "Banker" or "Banks". To include within the connotation of the expression "Banking" in Entry 45 of List I, power to legislate in respect of all commercial activities which a banker by the custom of bankers or authority of law engages in, would result in rewriting the Constitution. Investment of power to legislate on a designated topic covers all matters incidental to the topic. A legislative entry being expressed in a broad designation indicating the contour of plenary power must receive a meaning conducive to the widest amplitude, subject however to limitations inherent in the federal scheme which distributes legislative power between the Union and the constituent units. But the field of "banking" cannot be extended to include trading activities which not being incidental to banking encroach upon the substance of the entry "trade and commerce" in List II. 39. Rejection of the argument of the Attorney-General does not lend any practical support to the argument of Mr. Palkhivala that Act 22 of 1969, to the extent it makes provisions in respect of the undertaking of the named banks relating to non-banking business, is ultra vires the Parliament. In the first instance there is no evidence that the named banks were before July 19, 1969, carrying on non-banking business distinct and independent of the banking business, or that the banks held distinct assets for any non-banking business, apart from the assets of the banking business. Again by Act 22 of 1969 the corresponding banks are entitled to engage in business of banking and non-banking which the named banks were engaged in or competent to engage in prior to July 19, 1969, and the name banks are entitled to engage in business other than banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, but not the business of banking. By enacting that the corresponding new banks may carry on business specified in Section 6 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act and that the named banks shall not carry on banking business as defined in Section 5 (b) of that Act, the impugned Act did not encroach upon any entry in the State List. By Section 15 (2) (e) of the impugned Act the named banks are expressly reserved the right to carry on business other than banking, and it is not claimed that thereby there is any encroachment upon the State List. Exercise of the power to legislate for acquisition of the undertaking of the named banks also does not trespass upon the State List. 40. Before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, Entry 33, List I invested the Parliament with power to enact laws with respect to acquisition or requisitioning for the purpose of the Union, and Entry 36, List II, conferred upon the State Legislature the power to legislate with respect to acquisition or requisitioning for the remaining purposes. Those entries are now deleted, and a single Entry 42, List III invests the Parliament and the State Legislature with power to legislate with respect to "acquisition and requisitioning" of property.By Entry 42 in the Concurrent List power conferred upon the Parliament and the State Legislatures to legislate with respect to "Principles on which compensation for property acquired or requisitioned for the purpose of the Union or for any other public purpose is to be determined and the form in which such compensation is to be given". Power to legislate for acquisition of property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III, and not as an incident of the power to legislate in respect of a specific head of legislation in any of the three lists. Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra, 1954 SCR 779 at p. 785= (AIR 1954 SC 251 at p. 253). Under that entry "property" can be compulsorily acquired. In its normal connotation "property means the "highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on anothers courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade-marks, copy-rights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having a money value, especially with reference to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being injured". The expression "undertaking" in Section 4 of Act 22 of 1969 clearly means a going concern with all its rights, liabilities and assets - as distinct from the various rights and assets which compose it. In Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 6, Article 75 at p. 43, it is stated that "Although various ingredients go to make up an undertaking the term describes not the ingredients but the completed work from which the earnings arise." 41. Transfer of and vesting in the State Corporations of the entire undertaking of a going concern is contemplated in many Indian statutes: e.g, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 6, 7 and 7A; Air Corporation Act, 1953, Sections 16 and 17; Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920, Sections 3 and 4, State Bank of India Act, 1955, Section 6(2), (3) and (4); State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Section 36 AE: and Cotton Textile Companies Act, 1967, Ss. 5 (1) and (50 1 (6 (1)?) Power to legislate for acquisition of "property" in Entry 42, List III therefore, includes the power to legislate for acquisition of an undertaking. But, says Mr. Palkhivala, liabilities of the banks which are included in the connotation of the expression "undertaking" cannot be treated as "property". It is however the assets, rights and obligations of a going concern which constitute the undertaking; the obligations and liabilities of the business form an integral part of the undertaking, and for compulsory acquisition cannot be divorced from the assets, rights and privileges. The expression "property" in Entry 42, List III has a wide connotation, and it includes not only assets, but the organisation, liabilities and obligations of a going concern as a unit. A law may therefore, be enacted for compulsory acquisition of an undertaking as defined in Section 5 of Act 22 of 1969. 42. The contention raised by Mr. Palkhivala that the Parliament is incompetent to legislate for acquisition of the named banks in so far as it relates to assets of the non-banking business fails for two reasons - (i) that there is no evidence that the named banks held any assets for any distinct non-banking business; and (ii) that the acquisition is not shown to fall within an entry in List II of the Seventh Schedule. III. Infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner- 43. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 subordinate the exercise of the power of the State to the basic concept of the rule of law.Deprivation of a person of his property and compulsory acquisition may be effectuated by the authority of law. It is superfluous to add that the law limiting the authority of the State must be within the competence of the Legislature enacting it and not violative of a constitutional prohibition, nor impairing the guarantee of a fundamental right. This Court held in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, (1960) 3 SCR 887 = (AIR 1960 SC 1080 ); Swami Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sri Sankaraswamigal Mutt 1963 Supp 1 SCR 282 = (AIR 1963 SC 864 ) and Maharana Shri. Jayavantsinghji v. State of Gujarat, 1962 Supp 2 SCR 411 at p. 438 = (AIR 1962 SC 821 at p. 833) that a person may be deprived of his property by authority of a statute only if it does not impair the fundamental rights guaranteed to him. It is again not contested on behalf of the Union that the law authorising acquisition of property must be within the competence of the law-making authority and must not violate a constitutional prohibition or impair the guarantee of any of the fundamental rights in Part III. But it is claimed that since Article 31 (2) and Article 19 (1) (f) while operating on the same field of the right to property are mutually exclusive, a law directly providing for acquisition of property for a public purpose cannot be tested for its validity on the plea that it imposes limitations on the right to property which are not reasonable. 44. By Articles 31 (1) and (2) the right to property of individuals is protected against specific invasions by State action. The function of the two clauses - clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 - is to impose limitations on the power of the State and to declare the corresponding guarantee of the individual to his right to property. Limitation on the power of the State and the guarantee of right are plainly complementary. Protection of the guarantee is ensured by declaring that a person may be deprived of his property by "authority of law":Article 31 (1); and that private property may be compulsorily acquired for a public purpose and by the "authority of a law" containing provisions fixing or providing for determination and payment of compensation: Article 31 (2). Exercise of either power by State action results in abridgement - total or partial - of the right to property of the individual. Article 19 (1) (f) is a positive declaration in the widest terms of the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, subject to restrictions (which may assume the form of limitations or complete prohibition) imposed by law in the interest of the general public. The guarantee under Article 19 (1)(f) does not protect merely an abstract right to property: It extends to concrete rights to property as well: Swami Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltds case, 1963 Supp 1 SCR 282 = (AIR 1963 SC 864 ). 45. The constitutional scheme declares the right to property of the individual and then delimits it by two different provisions:Article 19 (5) authorizing the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, and clause (1) and (2) of Article 31 recognizing the authority of the State to make laws for taking the property. Limitations under Article 19 (5) and Article 31 are not generically different, for the law authorizing the exercise of the power to take the property of an individual for a public purpose or to ensure the well-being of the community, and the law authorising the imposition of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (5) are intended to advance the larger public interest. It is true that the guarantee against deprivation and compulsory acquisition operates in favour of all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens, whereas the positive declaration of the right to property guarantees the right to citizens. But a wider operation of the guarantee under Article 31 does not alter the true character of the right it protects.Article 19 (5) and Article 31 (1) and (2), in our judgment, operate to delimit the exercise of the right to hold property. 46. Under the Constitution, protection against impairment of the guarantee of fundamental rights is determined by the nature of the right, the interest of the aggrieved party and the degree of harm resulting from the State action. Impairment of the right of the individual and not the object of the State in taking the impugned action, is the measure of protection. To concentrate merely on power of the State and the object of the State action in exercising that power is therefore to ignore the true intent of the Constitution. In this Court, there is, however, a body of authority that the nature and extent of the protection of the fundamental rights is measured not by the operation of the State action upon the rights of the individual, but by its object. Thereby the constitutional scheme which makes the guaranteed rights subject to the permissible restrictions within their allotted fields fundamental got blurred and gave impetus to a theory that certain Articles of the Constitution enact a code dealing exclusively with matters dealt with therein,and the protection which an aggrieved person may claim is circumscribed by the object of the State action. 46-A.Protection of the right to property or personal freedom is most needed when there is an actual threat. To argue that State action which deprives a person permanently or temporarily of his right to property or personal freedom, operates to extinguish the right or the remedy is to reduce the guarantee to an empty platitude. Again to hold that the extent of, and the circumstances in which, the guarantee of protection is available depends upon the object of the State action, is to seriously erode its effectiveness. Examining the problem not merely in semantics but in the broader and more appropriate context of the constitutional scheme which aims at affording the individual the fullest protection of his basic rights and on that foundation to erect a structure of a truly democratic polity,the conclusion, in our judgment, is inevitable that the validity of the state action must be adjudged in the light of its operation upon the rights of the individual and groups of individuals in all their dimensions. 47. But this Court has held in some cases to be presently noticed that Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 (2) are mutually exclusive. 48. Early in the history of this Court the question of inter-relation between the diverse provisions affording the guarantee of fundamental rights in Part III fell to be determined. In A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88 = (AIR 1950 SC 27 ) a person detained pursuant to an order made in exercise of the power conferred by the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 applied to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the Act contravened the guarantee under articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The majority of the Court (Kania, C. J., and Patanjali Sastri, Mahajan, Mukherjea and Das, JJ.) held that Article 22 being a complete code relating to preventive detention, the validity of an order of detention must be determined strictly according to the terms and "within the four corners of that Article". They held that a person detained may not claim that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (d) was infringed by his detention, and that validity of the law providing for making orders of detention will not be tested in the light of the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed thereby on the freedom of movement, nor on the ground that his right to personal liberty is infringed otherwise than according to the procedure established by law. Fazl Ali, J., expressed a contrary view. This case has formed the nucleus of the theory that the protection of the guarantee of a fundamental freedom must be adjudged in the light of the object of State action in relation to the individuals right and not upon its influence upon the guarantee of the fundamental freedom, and as a corollary thereto, that the freedoms under Articles 19, 21, 22 and 31 are exclusive - each article enacting a code relating to protection of distinct rights. 49. Kania, C. J., proceeded on the theory that different articles guarantee distinct rights. He observed at p. 100 (of SCR) = (at p. 35 of AIR): "......it (Article 19) * * means that the legislation to be examined must be directly in respect of one of the rights mentioned in the sub-clauses. If there is a legislation directly attempting to control a citizens freedom of speech or expression, or his right to assemble peaceably and without arms, etc., the question whether that legislation is saved by the relevant saving clause of Article 19 will arise. If, however, the legislation is not directly in respect of any of these subjects, but as a result of the operation of other legislation, * * * the question of the application of Article 19 does not arise. The true approach is only to consider the directness of the legislation and not what will be the result of the detention otherwise valid, on the mode of the detenus life." The learned Chief Justice also observed that Article 19 (1) (d) had nothing to do with detention, preventive or punitive, and the concept of personal liberty in Article 21 being entirely different from the concept of the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, Article 22 was a complete code dealing with preventive detention. 50. Patanjali Sastri, J., observed at p. 191 (of SCR) = (at pp. 69-70 of AIR): "......article 19 seems * * to presuppose that the citizen to whom the possession of these fundamental rights is secured retains the substratum of personal freedom on which alone the enjoyment of these rights necessarily rests. * * Article 19 guarantees to the citizens the enjoyment of certain civil liberties while they are free, while articles 20-22 secure to all persons-citizens and non-citizens-certain constitutional guarantees in regard to punishment and prevention of crime." 51. Mahajan J., was of the view that Article 22 was self-contained in respect of laws on the subject of preventive detention. " Mukherjea, J., observed (at p. 254) (of SCR) = (at p. 93 AIR) that there was no conflict between Article 19 (1) (d) and Article 22, for the former did not contemplate freedom from detention either punitive or preventive, but speaks of a different aspect or phase of civil liberty. In his view Articles 20 to 22 embodied the entire protection guaranteed by the Constitution in relation to deprivation of life and personal liberty with regard to substantive as well as procedural law. He proceeded to observe at p. 261 (of SCR)= (at p. 96 of AIR): "...... by reason of preventive detention, a man may be prevented from exercising the right of free movement within the territory in India * * *, but that is merely incidental to or consequential upon loss of liberty resulting from the order of detention." But the learned Judge observed at p. 263 (of SCR)= (At p. 97 of AIR): "It may not, I think, be unite accurate to state that the operation of Article 19 of the Constitution is limited to free citizens only and that the rights have been described in that article on the pre-supposition that the citizens are at liberty. The deprivation of personal liberty may entail as a consequence the loss or abridgment of many of the rights described in Article 19, but that is because the nature of these rights is such that free exercise of them is not possible in the absence of personal liberty." 52. Das, J., observed at p. 304 (of SCR) = (At p. 113 of AIR): "Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the rights protected by Article 19 (1), in so far as they relate to rights attached to the person i.e., the rights referred to in sub-clauses (a) to (e) and (g), are rights which only a free citizen, who has the freedom of his person unimpaired, can exercise." The learned Judge further observed: "...... a lawful detention, whether punitive or preventive, does not offend against the protection conferred by Article 19 (1) (a) to (e) and (g), for those rights must necessarily cease when the freedom of the person is lawfully taken away. In short, those rights end where the lawful detention begins. So construed, Article 19 and Article 21 may, therefore, easily go together and there is, in reality, no conflict between them." 53. Fazl Ali, J., struck a different note: he observed at p. 148 (of SCR) = (at pp. 52-53 of AIR): "the scheme of the Chapter dealing with the fundamental rights does not contemplate * * that each article is a code by itself and is independent of the others. * * * The case of a person who is convicted of an offence will come under Articles 20 and 21 and also under Article 22 so far as his arrest and detention in custody before trial are concerned. Preventive detention, which is dealt with in Article 22, also amounts to deprivation of personal liberty which is referred to in Article 21,. and is a violation of the right of freedom of movement dealt with in Article 19 (1) (d)." At p. 149 (of SCR) = (at p. 53 of AIR) the learned Judge observed: "The words used in Article 19 (1) (d) must be construed as they stand, and we have to decide upon the words themselves whether in the case of preventive detention the right under Article 19 (1) (d) is or is not infringed. But, * * *, however, literally we may construe the words used in Article 19 (1) (d) and however restricted may be the meaning we may attribute to those words, there can be no escape from the conclusion that preventive detention is a direct infringement of the right guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (d)." At p. 170 (of SCR) = (at p. 61 of AIR) he observed: "......... this Article (Article 22) * * does not exclude the operation of Articles 19 and 21, and it must be read subject to those two articles, in the same way as Articles 19 and 21 must be read subject to Article 22. The correct position is that Article 22 must prevail in so far as there are specific provisions therein regarding preventive detention, but, where there are no such provisions in that Article, the operation of Articles 19 and 21 cannot be excluded. The mere fact that different aspects of the same right have been dealt with in three different Articles will not make them mutually exclusive except to the extent I have indicated." The view expressed in A. K. Gopalans case. 1950 SCR 88 = (AIR 1950 SC 27 ) was re-affirmed in Ram Singh v. State of Delhi, 1951 SCR 451 = (AIR 1951 SC 270 ). 54. The principle underlying the judgment of majority was extended to the protection of the freedom in respect of property, and it was held that Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31 (2) were mutually exclusive in their operation. In A. K. Gopalans case. 1950 SCR 88 = (AIR 1950 SC 27 ), Das, J., suggested that if the capacity to exercise the right to property was lost because of lawful compulsory acquisition of the subject of that right, the owner ceased to have that right for the duration of the incapacity. In Chiranjit Lal Chowduris case, 1950 SCR 869 = (AIR 1951 SC 41 ), Das, J., observed at p. 919 (of SCR) = (at p. 60 of AIR): " ...... the right to property guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (f) would * * * continue until the owner was under Article 31 deprived of such property by authority of law." In State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal 1954 SCR 587 = (AIR 1954 SC 92 ) the same learned Judge observed that "Article 19 (1) (f) read with Article 19 (5) presupposes that the person to whom the fundamental right is guaranteed retains his property over or with respect to which alone that right may be exercised." The principle so stated was given a more concrete shape in a later decision: State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, 1955-1 SCR - 777 = (AIR 1955 SC 41 ). In Bhanji Munjis case 1955-1 SCR 777 = (AIR 1955 SC 41 ), speaking for a unanimous Court, Bose, J., observed: "......it is enough to say that Article 19 (1) (f) read with clause (5) postulates the existence of property which can be enjoyed, and over which rights can be exercised because otherwise the reasonable restrictions contemplated by Clause (5) could not be brought into play. If there is no property which can be acquired, held or disposed of, no restriction can be placed on the exercise of the right to acquire, hold or dispose it of, and as Clause (5) contemplates the placing of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights it must follow that the Article postulates the existence of property over which the rights are to be exercised." Bhanji Munjis case, 1955-1 SCR 777 = (AIR 1955 SC 41 ) was accepted without any discussion in Babu Barkya v. State of Bombay, (1961) 1 SCR 128 = (AIR 1960 SC 1203 ); Smt. Sitabati Debi v. State of West Bengal, 1967-2 SCR 949 and other cases. In these cases it was held that the substantive provisions of a law relating to acquisition of property were not liable to be challenged on the ground that they imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to hold property. 55. Bhanji Munjis case, 1955-1 SCR 777 = (AIR 1955 SC 41 ), it must be remembered, arose under Article 31 before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act. It was held by this Court that Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 as they then stood dealt with the same subject-matter i. e., compulsory acquisition of property: see Subodh Gopals case, 1954 SCR 587 = (AIR 1954 SC 92 ) and Dwarkadas Shriniwass case, 1954 SCR 674 = (AIR 1954 SC 119 ). But since the amendment by the constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act it has been held that Clauses (1) and (2) deal with different subject-matters. In Kavalappara Kottarrathil Kochunis case, 1960-3 SCR 887 = (AIR 1960 SC 1080 ), Subba Rao, J., delivering the judgment of the majority of the Court observed that Cl. (2) of Article 31 alone deals with compulsory acquisition of property by the State for a public purpose, and not Article 31 (1), and he proceeded to hold that the expression "authority of law" means authority of a valid law, and on that account validity of the law seeking to deprive a person of his property is open to challenge on the ground that it infringes other fundamental rights, e. g., under Article 19 (1) (f). It was broadly observed that Bhanji Munjis case, 1955-1 SCR 777 = (AIR 1955 SC 41 ) after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act "no longer holds the field". But Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunis case, 1960-3 SCR 887 = (AIR 1960 SC 1080 ) did not deal with the validity of a law relating to compulsory acquisition. With the decision in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunis case, 1960-3 SCR 887 = (AIR 1960 SC 1080 ) there arose two divergent lines of authority: (1) "authority of law" in Art. 31 (1) is liable to be tested on the ground that it violates other fundamental rights and freedoms including the right to hold property guarantee by Article 19 (1) (f); and (20 "authority of a law" within the meaning of Article 31 (2) is not liable to be tested on the ground that it impairs the guarantee of Article 19 (1) (f) in so far as it imposes substantive restrictions - though it may be tested on the ground of impairment of other guarantees. The expression "law" in the two clauses had therefore different meanings. It was for the first time (obiter dicta apart) in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde, 1968-3 SCR 489 = (AIR 1968 SC 1053 ) this Court opined that the validity of law in Clause (2) of Article 31 may be adjudged in the light of Article 19 (1) (f). But the Court in that case did not consider the previous catena of authorities which related to the inter-relation between Article 31 (2) and Article 19 (1) (f). 56. We have carefully considered the weighty pronouncements of the eminent Judge who gave shape to the concept that the extent of protection of important guarantees, such as the liberty of person, and right to property, depends upon the form and object of the State action, and not upon its direct operation upon the individuals freedom.But it is not the object of the authority making the law impairing the right of a citizen, nor the form of action taken that determines the protection he can claim: it is the effect of the law and of the action upon the right which attract the jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief. It this be the true view and we think it is, in determining the impact of State action upon constitutional guarantees which are fundamental, it follows that the extent of protection against impairment of a fundamental right is determined not by the object of Legislature nor by the form of the action, but by its direct operation upon the individuals rights. 57. We are of the view that the theory that the object and form of the State action determine the extent of protection which the aggrieved party may claim is not consistent with the constitutional scheme. Each freedom has different dimensions. Article 19 (1) (f) enunciates the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property: Clause (5) of Article 19 authorizes imposition of restrictions upon the right. Article 31 assures the right to property and grants protection against the exercise of the authority of the State. Clause (5) of Article 19 and Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 prescribe restrictions upon State action, subject to which the right to property may be exercised.Article 19 (5) is a broad generalization dealing with the nature of limitations which may be placed by law on the right to property. The guarantees under Article 31 (1) and (2) arise out of the limitations imposed on the authority of the State by law to take over the individuals property.The true character of the limitations under the two provisions is not different. Clause (5) of Article 19 and columns (1) and (2) of Article 31 are parts of a single pattern. Article 19 (1) (f) enunciates the basic right to property of the citizens and Article 19 (5) and Clauses (1) (2) Article 31 deal with limitations which may be placed by law subject to which the rights may be exercised. 58-60. Limitations prescribed for ensuring due exercise of the authority of the State to deprive a person of his property and of the power to compulsorily acquire his property are, therefore, specific classes of limitations on the rights to property falling within Article 19 (1) (f). Property may be compulsorily acquired only for a public purpose. Where the law provides for compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose it may be presumed that the acquisition or the law relating thereto imposes a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. If there is no public purpose to sustain compulsory acquisition, the law violates Article 31 (2). If the acquisition is for a public purpose, substantive reasonableness of the restriction which includes deprivation may, unless otherwise established, be presumed, but enquiry into reasonableness of the procedural provisions will not be excluded. For instance if a tribunal is authorised by an Act to determine compensation for property compulsorily acquired, without hearing the owner of the property, the Act would be liable to be struck down under Article 19 (1) (f). 61. In dealing with the argument that Article 31 (2) is a complete code relating to infringement of the right to property by compulsory acquisition, and the validity of the law is not liable to be tested in the light of the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed thereby it is necessary to bear in mind the enunciation of the guarantee of fundamental rights which has taken different forms. In some cases it is an express declaration of a guaranteed right: Articles 29 (1), 30 (1), 26, 25 and 32; in others to ensure protection of individual rights they take specific forms of restrictions on State action -legislative or executive-Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 (1), 27 and 28; in some others, it takes the form of a positive declaration and simultaneously enunciates the restriction thereon: Articles 19 (1) and 19 (2) to (6); in some cases, it arises as an implication from the delimitation of the authority of the State, e. g., Articles 31 (1) and 31 (2); in still others, it takes the form of a general prohibition against the State as well as others: Articles 17, 23 and 24. The enunciation of right either express or by implication does not follow a uniform pattern. But one thread runs through them: they seek to protect the rights of the individual or groups of individuals against infringement of those rights within specific limits. Part III of the Constitution weaves a pattern of guarantees on the texture of basic human rights. The guarantees delimit the protection of those rights in their allotted fields; they do not attempt to enunciate distinct rights. 62. We are therefore unable to hold that the challenge to the validity of the provision for acquisition is liable to be tested only on the ground of non-compliance with Article 31 (2). Article 31 (2) requires that property must be acquired for a public purpose and that it must be acquired under a law with characteristics set out in that Article. Formal compliance with the conditions under Art. 31 (2) is not sufficient to negative the protection of the guarantee of the right to property. Acquisition must be under the authority of a law and the expression "law" means a law which is within the competence of the Legislature and does not impair the guarantee of the rights in Part III.We are unable, therefore, to agree that Article 19 (1) (f) and 31 (2) are mutually exclusive. 63. The area of protection afforded against State action by the freedom under Article 19 (1) (f) and by the exercise of the power of the State to acquire property of the individual without his consent must still be reconciled. If property is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, and the law satisfies the requirements of Articles 31 (2) and 31 (2A), the Court may readily presume that by the acquisition a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to hold property is imposed in the interests of the general public.But that is not because the claim to plead infringement of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (f) does not avail the owner; it is because the acquisition imposes a permissible restriction on the right of the owner of the property compulsorily acquired. 64. We have found it necessary to examine the rationale of the two lines of authority and determine whether there is anything in the Constitution which justifies this apparently inconsistent development of the law. In our judgment, the assumption in A. K. Gopalans case 1950 SCR 88 = (AIR 1950 SC 27 ) that certain articles in the Constitution exclusively deal with specific matters and determining whether there is infringement of the individuals guaranteed rights, the object and the form of the State action alone need be considered, and effect of the laws on fundamental rights of the individuals in general will be ignored cannot be accepted as correct.We hold that the validity of "law" which authorises deprivation of property and "a law" which authorises compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose must be adjudged by the application of the same test. A citizen may claim in an appropriate case that the law authorising compulsory acquisition of property imposes fetters upon his right to hold property which are not reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. It is immaterial that the scope for such challenge may be attenuated because of the nature of the law of acquisition which providing as it does for expropriation of property of the individual for public purpose may be presumed to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. 65. Whether the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of Act 22 of 1969 and the other related provisions of the Act impair the fundamental freedoms under Articles 19 (1) (f) and (g) now falls to be considered. By Section 4 the entire undertaking of each named bank vests in the Union, and the Bank is prohibited from engaging in the business of banking in India and even in a foreign country, except where by the laws of a foreign country banking business owned or controlled by Government cannot be carried on, the named bank will be entitled to continue the business in that country. The business which the named banks carried on was-(1) the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and business incidental thereto; and (2) other business which by virtue of Section 6 (1) they were not prohibited from carrying on, though not part of or incidental to the business of banking. It may be recalled that by Act 22 of 1969 the named banks cannot engage in business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but may engage in other forms of business. By the Act, however, the entire undertaking of each named bank is vested in the new corporation set up with a name identical with the name of that Bank, and authorised to carry on banking business previously carried on by the named bank, and its managerial and other staff is transferred to the corresponding new bank.The newly constituted corresponding bank is entitled to engage in business described in Section 6 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, and for that purpose to utilize the assets, goodwill and business connections of the existing bank. 66. The named banks are declared entitled to engage in business other than banking: but they have no assets with which that business may be carried on, and since they are prohibited from carrying on banking business, by virtue of Section 7 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, they cannot use in their title the words "Bank" or "Banking", and even engage in "non-banking business" in their old names. A business organization deprived of its entire assets and undertaking, its managerial and other staff, its premises, and its name, even if it has a theoretical right to carry on non-banking business, would not be able to do so, especially when even the fraction of the value of its undertaking made payable to it as compensation, is not made immediately payable to it. 67. Validity of the provisions of the Act which transfer the undertaking of the named banks and prohibit those banks from carrying on business of banking and practically prohibit them from carrying on non-banking business falls to be considered in the light of Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. By Article 19 (1) (f) right to acquire, hold and dispose of property is guaranteed to the citizens and by Art. 19 (1) (g) the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is guaranteed to the citizens. These rights are not absolute: they are subject to the restrictions prescribed in the appropriate clauses of Article 19. By Cl. (5) it is provided, inter alia, that nothing in sub-cl. (f) of Cl. (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law, imposing in the interests of the general public,reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by that sub-clause either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. Clause (6) as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, reads: "Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause, shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making law relating to- (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation-owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise." Clause (6) of Article 19 consists of two parts: (1) the right declared by sub-cl. (g) is not protected against the operation of any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on exercise of the right conferred by that sub-clause; and (2) in particular sub-cl. (g) does not affect the operation of any law relating, inter alia, to carrying on by the State or by a corporation-owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service whether or not such law provides for the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens. 68. According to Mr. Palkhivala it was intended by the use of the expression "in particular" to denote a special class of trade, business, industry or service out of the general class referred to in the first part, and on that account a law which relates to the carrying on by the State of any particular business, industry or service, to the exclusion-complete or partial-of citizens or otherwise, is also subject to the enquiry whether it imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right in the interests of the general public. Counsel urged that the law imposing restrictions upon the exercise of the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is subject to the test of reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of the general public, likewise, the particular classes specified in the second part of the Article must also be regarded as liable to be tested in the light of the same limitations. Counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Earl Fitzwilliams Wentworth Estates Co. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, (1952) 1 All ER 509. House of Lords in that case did to lay down any general proposition. They were only dealing with the meaning of the words "in particular" in the context in which they occurred and it was held that the expression "in particular" was not intended to confer a separate and distinct power wholly independent of that contained in the first limb. It cannot be said that the expression "in particular" used in Article 19 (1) (g) is intended either to particularise or to illustrate the general law set out in the first limb.69. It was observed in Saghir Ahmed v. State of U. P., 1955-1 SCR 707 = (AIR 1954 SC 728 ) by Mukherjea, J., at p. 727 (of SCR) = (at p. 739 of AIR): "The new clause-Article 19 (6)-has no doubt been introduced with a view to provide that a State can create a monopoly in its own favour in respect of any trade or business; but the amendment does not make the establishment of such monopoly a reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first clause of Article 19 (6). The result of the amendment is that the State would not have to justify such action as reasonable at all in a court of law, and no objection could be taken to it on the ground that it is an infringement of the rights guaranteed under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution." 70. In dealing with the validity of a law creating a State monopoly in Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, 1963 Supp 2 SCR 691 = (AIR 1963 SC 1047 ), this Court unanimously held, that the validity of a law creating a State monopoly which "indirectly impinges on any other right" cannot be challenged on the ground that it imposes restrictions which are not reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. But if the law contains other incidental provisions which do not constitute an essential and integral part of the monopoly created by it, the validity of those provisions is liable to be tested under the first part of Article 19 (6). If they directly impair any other fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1), the validity of those provisions will be tested by reference to the corresponding clause of Article 19. The Court also observed that the essential attributes of the law creating a monopoly will vary with the nature of the trade or business in which the monopoly will vary with the nature of the trade or business in which the monopoly is created.They will depend upon the nature of the commodity, the nature of trade in which it is involved and other circumstances. At p. 707 (of SCR) = (at p. 1054 of AIR) Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Court, observed: " A law relating to a State monopoly cannot, in the contest, include all the provisions contained in the said law whether they have direct relation with the creation of the monopoly or not. In our opinion, the said expression should be construed to mean the law relating to the monopoly in its absolutely essential features. If a law is passed creating a State monopoly, the Court should enquire what are the provisions of the said law which are basically and essentially necessary for creating the State monopoly. It is only those essential and basic provisions which are protected by the latter part of Article 19 (6). If there are other provisions made by the Act which are subsidiary, incidental or helpful to the operation of the monopoly, they do not fall under the first part of Article 19 (6)." He also observed at p. 705 (of SCR) = (at p. 1054 of AIR): "....the amendment (First Amendment) clearly indicates that State monopoly in respect of any trade or business must be presumed to be reasonable and in the interests of general public, so far as Article 19 (1) (g) is concerned." This was reiterated in Rasbihari Panda v. State of Orissa. Civil Appeals Nos. 1472-1474 of 1968, D/- 16-1-1969 = (reported in AIR 1969 SC 1081 ); Vrajlal Manilal and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No. 2262 of 1966, D/- 25-4-1969 = (reported in AIR 1970 SC 129 ) and Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, Writ Petn. No. 295 and other Petns. of 1968, D/- 30-1-1969 = (reported in AIR 1969 SC 1100 ). These cases dealt with the validity of laws creating monopolies in the State. Clause (6) is however not restricted to laws creating State monopolies, and the rule enunciated in Akadasi Padhans case, 1963 Supp (2) SCR 691 = (AIR 1963 SC 1047 )applies to all laws relating to the carrying on by the State of any trade, business, industry or service by Art. 298 the State is authorized to carry on trade which is competitive, or excludes the citizens from that trade completely or partially. The "basic and essential" provisions of law which are "integrally and essentially connected" with the carrying on of a trade by the State will not be exposed to the challenge that they impair the guarantee under Article 19 (1) (g), whether the citizens are excluded completely or partially from carrying on that trade, or the trade is competitive. Imposition of restrictions which are incidental or subsidiary to the carrying on of trade by the State whether to the exclusion of the citizens or not must, however, satisfy the test of the main limb. 71. The law which prohibits after July 19, 1969, the named banks from carrying on banking business, being a necessary incident of the right assumed by the Union, is not liable to be challenged because of Article 19 (6) (ii) in so far as it affects the right to carry on business. 71-A. There is no satisfactory proof in support of the plea that the enactment of Act 22 of 1969 was not in the larger interest of the nation, but to serve political ends, i.e. not with the object to ensure better banking facilities, or to make them available to a wider public, but only to take control over the deposits of the public with the major banks, and to use them as a political lever against industrialists who had built up industries by decades of industrial planing and careful management. It is true that social control legislation enacted by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act 58 of 1968 was in operation and the named banks were subject to rigorous control which the Reserve Bank was competent to exercise and did in fact exercise. Granting that the objectives laid down by the Reserve Bank being carried out, it cannot be said that the Act was enacted in abuse of legislative power.Our attention was invited to a mass of evidence from the speeches of the Deputy Prime Minister, and of the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, and also extracts from the Reserve Bank Bulletins issued from time to time and other statistical information collected from official sources in support of the thesis of the petitioner that the performance of the named banks exceeded the targets laid down by the Reserve Bank on its directives; that the named banks had effectively complied with the requirements of the law; that they had served the diverse interests including small-scale sector, and had been instrumental in bringing about an increasing tempo of industrial and commercial activity; that they had discouraged speculative holding of commodities; and had followed essential priorities in the economic development of the nation coupled with a vigorous programme of branch development in the rural sector, brining about a considerable expansion in deposits, and large advances to the small-scale business and industry. Mr. Palkhivala urged that under the scheme of social control the commercial banks had achieved impressive results comparing favourably with the performance of the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries in the public sector, and that the performance of the named banks could not be belittled by referring to the banking structure and development in highly developed countries like Canada, Japan, France, United States and the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Attorney-General said that the commercial banks followed a conservative policy because they had to look primarily to the interests of the shareholders, and on that account could not adopt bold policies or schemes for financing the needy and worthy causes; that if the resources of the banking industry are properly utilised for the weaker sections of the people economic regeneration of the nation may be speedily achieved, that 28 per cent of the towns in India were not served by commercial banks; that there had been unequal development of facilities in different parts of the country and deserving sections were deprived of the benefit of important national resources resulting in economic disparities, especially because the major banks catered to the large-scale industries. 72. This Court is not the forum in which these conflicting claims may be debated.Whether there is a genuine need for banking facility in the rural areas, whether certain classes of the community are deprived of the benefit of the resources of the banking industry, whether administration by the Government of the commercial banking sector will not prove beneficial to the community and will lead to rigidity in the administration whether the Government administration will eschew the profit-motive,and even if it be eschewed, there will accrue substantial benefits to the public, whether an undue accent on banking as a means of social regeneration, especially in the backward areas, is a doctrinaire approach to a rational order of priorities for attaining the national objectives enshrined in our Constitution, and whether the policy followed by the Government in office or the policy propounded by its opponents may reasonably attain the national objectives are matters which have little relevance in determining the legality of the measure.It is again not for this Court to consider the relative merits of the different political theories or economic policies. The Parliament has under Entry 45 List I the power to legislate in respect of banking and other commercial activities of the named banks necessarily incidental thereto: it has the power to legislate for acquiring the undertaking of the named banks under Entry 42 List III. Whether by the exercise of the power vested in the Reserve Bank under the pre-existing laws results could be achieved which it is the object of the Act to achieve, is in our judgment, not relevant in considering whether the Act amounts to abuse of legislative power. This Court has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal over the policy of the Parliament in enacting a law. The Court cannot find fault with the Act merely on the ground that it is inadvisable to take over the undertaking of banks which, it is said by the petitioner, by thrift and efficient management had set up an impressive and efficient business organization serving large sectors of industry. 73. By Section 15 (2) (e) of the Act the Banks are entitled to engage in business other than banking. But by the provisions of the Act they are rendered practically incapable of engaging in any business. By the provisions of the Act, a named bank cannot even use its name, and the compensation which is to be given will, in the absence of agreement, be determined by the Tribunal, and paid in securities which will mature not before ten years. A named bank may, if it agrees to distribute among the shareholders the compensation which it may receive, be paid in securities an amount equal to half the paid-up share capital, but obviously the fund will not be available to the Bank. It is true that under Section 15 (3) of the Act the Central Government may authorise the corresponding new banks to make advances to the named banks for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 15 (2). But that is a matter which rests only upon the will of the Central Government and no right can be founded upon it. 74. Where restrictions imposed upon the carrying on of a business are so stringent that the business cannot in practice be carried on, the Court will regard the imposition of the restrictions as unreasonable. In Mohannad Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad, 1952 SCR 572= (AIR 1952 SC 115 ) this Court observed that under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution a citizen has the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business and the only restriction on this right is the authority of the State to make a law relating to the carrying on of such occupation, trade or business as mentioned in Clause (6) of that Article as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. In Mohammad Yasins case, 1952 SCR 572= (AIR 1952 SC 115 ) by the bye-laws of the Municipal Committee, it was provided that no person shall sell or purchase any vegetables or fruit within the limits of the municipal area of Jalalabad, wholesale or by auction, without paying the prescribed fee. It was urged on behalf of a wholesale dealer in vegetables that although there was no prohibition against carrying on business in vegetables by anybody, in effect the bye-laws brought about a total stoppage of the wholesalers business in a commercial sense, for he had to pay prescribed fee to the contractor, and under the bye-laws the wholesale dealer could not charge a higher rate of commission than the contractor. The wholesale dealer, therefore, could charge the growers of vegetables and fruit only the commission permissible under the by-laws, and he had make over the entire commission to the contractor without retaining any part thereof. The wholesale dealer was thereby converted into mere tax-collector for the contractor or the Town Area Committee without any remuneration. The bye-laws in this situation were struck down as impairing the freedom to carry on business. 75. In Dwarkadas Shrinivass case, 1954 SCR 674 = (AIR 1954 SC 119 ) the Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Company (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance II of 1950 and Act 28 of 1950 passed by the Parliament to replace the Ordinance were challenged. Under the Ordinance the managing agent and the elected directors were dismissed and new directors were appointed by the State. The Company was denuded of possession of its property and all that was left to the Company was bare legal title. In an appeal arising out of a suit challenging the validity of the Ordinance and the Act which replaced it this Court held that the Ordinance and the Act violated the fundamental right of the Company and of the plaintiff a preference shareholder upon whom demand was made for payment of unpaid calls. This Court held that the Ordinance and the Act in effect deprived the Company of its property within the meaning of Article 31 without compensation. It was observed by Mahajan, J., that practically all incidents of ownership were taken over by the State and nothing was left with the Company but the mere husk of title, and on that account the impugned statute had overstepped the limits of legitimate social control legislation. 76.If compensation paid is in such a form that it is not immediately available for restarting any business, declaration of the right to carry on business other than banking becomes an empty formality, when the entire undertaking of the named banks is transferred to and vests in the new banks together with the premises and the names of the banks are deprived of the services of its administrative and other staff. 77.The restriction imposed upon the right of the named banks to carry on "non-banking" business is, in our judgment, plainly unreasonable. No attempt is made to support the Act which while theoretically declaring the right of the named banks to carry on "non-banking" business makes it impossible in a commercial sense for the banks to carry on any business. Protection of Article 14- 78. By Article 14 of the Constitution the State is enjoined not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. The Article forbids class legislation, but not reasonable classification in making laws. The test of permissible classification under an Act lies in two cumulative conditions: (i) classification under the Act must be founded on an intelligible differentia distinguishing persons, transactions or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act: there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act: Chiranjit Lal Chowduris case, 1950 SCR 869 = (AIR 1951 SC 41 ); State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara, (1951) SCR 682 = (AIR 1951 SC 318 );State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 SCR 284= (AIR 1952 SC 75 ); Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, (1955) 1 SCR 1045 = (AIR 1955 SC 191 ); Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S. R. Tendolkar, 1959 SCR 279 at p. 300= (AIR 1958 SC 538 at p. 542); and State of Rajasthan v. Mukanchand, (1964) 6 SCR 903 at p. 910 = (AIR 1964 SC 1633 at p. 1635). 79. The Courts recognize in the Legislature some degree of elasticity in the matter of making a classification between persons, objects and transactions.Provided the classification is based on some intelligible ground, the Courts will not strike down that classification, because in the view of the Court it should have proceeded on some other ground or should have included the class selected for special treatment some other persons, objects or transactions which are not included by the Legislature. The Legislature is free to recognize the degree of harm and to restrict the operation of a law only to those cases where the need is the clearest. The Legislature need not extend the regulation of a law to all cases it may possibly reach, and may make a classification founded on practical grounds of convenience. Classification to be valid must, however, disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law which makes the classification. Validity of a classification will be upheld only if that test is independently satisfied. The Court in examining the validity of a statute challenged as infringing the equality clause makes an assumption that there is a reasonable classification and that the classification has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. 80. By the definition of existing bank in Section 2 (d) of the Act, fourteen named banks in the First Schedule are, out of many commercial banks engaged in the business of banking, selected for special treatment, in that the undertaking of the named banks is taken over, they are prevented from carrying on in India and abroad banking business and the Act operates in practice to prevent those banks engaging in business other than banking. 81. By reason of the transfer of the undertaking of the named banks, the interests of the banks and the shareholders are vitally affected. Investment in bank-shares is regarded in India, especially in the shares of larger banks, as a safe investment on attractive terms with a steady return and fluidity of conversion. Mr. Palkhivala has handed in a statement setting out the percentage return of dividend on market rates in 1968. The rate works out at more than 10 per cent in the case of the shares of Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India, Dena Bank, Indian Bank, United Bank and United Commercial Bank; and at more than 9 per cent in the case of shares of Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra, Canara Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and United Bank of India.In the case of Allahabad Bank it worked out at 5 per cent, and in the case of shares of Punjab National Bank and Syndicate Bank the rates are not available. This statement is not challenged. Since the taking over of the undertaking, there has resulted a steep fall in the ruling market quotations of the shares of a majority of the named banks.The market quotations have slumped to less than 50 per cent in the case of Bank of India, Central Bank, Bank of Baroda and even at the quoted rates probably there are no transactions. Dividend may no longer be distributed, for the banks have no liquid assets and they are not engaged in any commercial activity. It may take many years before the compensation payable to the banks may even be finalized, and be available to the named banks for utilising it in any commercial venture open to the banks under the Act. Under the scheme of determination of compensation, the total amount payable to the banks will be a fraction of the value of their net assets, and that compensation will not be available to the Banks immediately. 82. The ground for selection of the 14 banks is that those banks held deposits, as shown in the return as on the last Friday of June 1969, furnished to the Reserve Bank under Section 27 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, of not less than rupees fifty crores. 83. The object of Act 22 of 1969 is according to the long title to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the undertakings of certain banking companies in order to serve better the needs of development of the economy in conformity with the national policy and objectives and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The national policy may reasonably be taken to be policy contained in the directive principles of State policy, especially Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution. For achieving the needs of a developing economy in conformity with the national policy and objectives, the resources of all the banks - foreign as well as Indian - are inadequate. Of the total deposits with commercial banks 27 per cent are with the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries: the named commercial banks of which the undertaking is taken over hold approximately 56 per cent of the deposits. The remaining 17 per cent of the deposits are shared by the foreign banks and the other scheduled and non-scheduled commercial banks. 83 per cent of the total resources may obviously not meet wholly or even substantially the needs of development of the economy. 84. In support of the plea that there is a reasonable relation between the differentia - ground for making the distinction between the named banks and the other banks - India and foreign - and the object of the Act it is urged that the policy of the Union is to control the concentration of private economic resources to ensure achievement of the directive principles of State policy, and for that purpose, selection has been made "with an eye, inter alia, to the magnitude and concentration of the economic resources of such enterprises for inclusion in such law as would be essential or substantially conducive to the achievement of the national objectives and policy." It is apparently claimed that the object of the Government - not of the statute - is to acquire ultimately all banking institutions, but the 14 named banks are selected for acquisition because they have "larger business and wider coverage" in comparison with other banks not selected, and had also larger organization, better managerial resources and employees better trained and equipped. These are primarily grounds for classification and not for explaining the relation between the classification and the object of the Act. But in the absence of any reliable data, we do not think it necessary to express an opinion on the question whether selection of the undertaking of some out of many banking institutions, for compulsory acquisition, is liable to be struck down as hostile discrimination, on the ground that there is no reasonable relation between the differentia and the object of the Act which cannot be substantially served even by the acquisition of the undertakings of all the banks out of which the selection is made. 85. It is claimed that the depositors with the named banks have also a grievance. Those depositors who had made long-term deposits, taking into account the confidence they had in the management of the banks and the service they rendered, are now called upon to trust the management of a statutory corporation not selected by them, without an opportunity of being placed in the same position in which they would have been if they were permitted to transfer their deposits elsewhere. The argument is based on several imponderables and does not require any detailed consideration. 86. But two other grounds in support of the plea of impairment of the guarantee of equality clause require to be noticed. The fourteen named banks are prohibited from carrying on banking business - a disability for which there is no rational explanation. Banks other than the named banks may carry on banking business in India and abroad: new banks may be floated for carrying on banking business, but the named banks are prohibited from carrying on banking business. Each named bank had, even as claimed on behalf of the Union, by its superior management established an extensive business organization, and each bank had deposits exceeding Rs. 50 crores. The undertakings of the banks are taken over and they are prohibited from doing banking business. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union no serious attempt is made to explain why the named banks should be specially selected for being subjected to this disability. 87. The petitioner also contended that the classification is made on a wholly irrational ground, viz., penalizing efficiency and good management, for the major fourteen banks had made a sustained effort and had exceeded the Reserve Bank target and had fully complied with the directives under the social control legislation. This, it is said, is a reversal of the policy underlying Section 36 AE of the Banking Regulation Act under which inefficient and recalcitrant banks are contemplated to be taken over by the Government. We need express no opinion on this part of the argument. But the petitioner is on firm ground in contending that when after acquiring the assets, undertaking, organization, goodwill and the names of the named banks they are prohibited from carrying on banking business, whereas other banks Indian as well as foreign - are permitted to carry on banking business, a flagrantly hostile discrimination is practised. Section 15 (2) of the Act which by the clearest implication prohibits the named banks from carrying on banking business is, therefore, liable to be struck down. It is immaterial whether the entire sub-section (2) is struck down or as suggested by the Attorney-General that only the words "other than the business of banking" in Section 15 (2) (e) be struck down. Again, in considering the validity of Section 15 (2) (e) in its relation to the guarantee of freedom to carry on business other than banking, we have already pointed out that the named banks are also, (though theoretically competent) in substance prohibited from carrying on non-banking business. For reasons set out by us for holding that the restriction is unreasonable, it must also be held that the guarantee of equality is impaired by preventing the named banks carrying on the non-banking business. Protection of the guarantee under Article 31 (2)- 88. The guarantee under Article 31 (2) arises directly out of the restrictions imposed upon the power of the State to acquire private property, without the consent of the owner for a public purpose. Upon the exercise of the power to acquire or requisition property, by clause (2) two restrictions are placed: (a) power to acquire shall not be exercised save for a public purpose; and (b) that it shall not be exercised save by authority of a law which provides for compensation for the property acquired or requisitioned, and fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given. Sub-clause (2A) in substance provides a definition of "compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of property". Existence of a public purpose and provision for giving compensation for compulsory acquisition of property of an individual are conditions of the exercise of the power. If either condition be absent, the guarantee under Article 31 (2) is impaired, and the law providing for acquisition will be invalid. But jurisdiction of the Court to question the law on the ground that compensation provided thereby is not adequate is, expressly excluded. 89. In the case before us we need not express any opinion on the question whether a composite undertaking of two or more distinct lines of business may be acquired where there is a public purpose for acquisition of the assets of one or more lines of business, but not in respect of all the lines of business. As we have already observed, there is no evidence that the named banks carried on non-banking business, distinct from banking business, and in respect of such non-banking business the banks owned distinct assets apart from the assets of the banking business. 90. The law providing for acquisition must again either fix the amount of compensation or specify the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.The owner whose property is compulsorily acquired is guaranteed the right to receive compensation and the amount of compensation must either be fixed by the law or be determined according to the principles and in the manner specified by the law. The law which does not ensure the guarantee will, except where the grievance only is that the compensation provided by the law is inadequate, be declared void. 91. The petitioner says that the expression "compensation" means a "just equivalent" in money of the property acquired and that the law providing for compulsory acquisition must "aim" at a just equivalent to the expropriated owner: if the law so aims at, it will not be deemed to impair the guarantee merely on the ground that the compensation paid to the owner is inadequate. The Attorney-General on the other hand says that "compensation" in Article 31 (2) does not mean a just equivalent, and it is not predicated of the validity of a law relating to compulsory acquisition that it must aim at awarding a just equivalent, for, if the law is not confiscatory, or the principles for determination of compensation are not irrelevant, "the Courts cannot go into the property of such principles or adequacy or reasonableness of the compensation". 92. Two questions immediately arise for determination. What is the true meaning of the expression "compensation" as used in Article 31 (2), and what is the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court when the validity of a law providing for compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose is challenged? 92-A. In its dictionary meaning "compensation" means anything given to make things equal in value: anything given as an equivalent, to make amends for loss or damage. In all States where the rule of law prevails, the right to compensation is guaranteed by the Constitution or regarded as inextricably involved in the right to property. 93. By the 5th Amendment in the Constitution of the U. S. A. the right of eminent domain is expressly circumscribed by providing "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". Such a provision is to be found also in every State Constitution in the United States: Lewis Eminent Domain, 3rd Edn., (pp. 28-50). The Japanese Constitution, 1946, by Article 25 provides a similar guarantee. Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, 1900, the Commonwealth Parliament is invested with the power of acquisition of property on "just terms": Section (57 XXXI). 94. Under the Common Law of England, principles for payment of compensation for acquisition of property by the State are stated by Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England", 4th Edn., Vol. 1, at p. 109: "So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorise the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. * * * Besides, the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individuals private rights, as modelled by the municipal law. In this and similar cases, the legislature alone can, and indeed frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by absolutely stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner; but giving him a full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained. The public is now considered as an individual, treating with an individual for an exchange. All that the legislature does, is to oblige the owner to alienate his possession for a reasonable price: * * *" The British Parliament is supreme and its powers are not subject to any constitutional limitations. But the British parliament has rarely, if at all, exercised power to take property without payment of the cash value of the property taken. In Attorney-General v. De Keysers Royal Hotel, 1920 AC 508, the House of Lords held that the Crown is not entitled as of right either by virtue of its prerogative or under any statute, to take possession of the land or building of a subject for administrative purposes in connection with the defence of the realm, without compensation for their use and occupation. 95. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, by Section 299 (2) it was enacted that: "Neither the Federal or a Provincial Legislature shall have power to make any law authorising the compulsory acquisition for public purposes of any land, or any commercial or industrial undertaking, or any interest in, or in any company owning, any commercial or industrial undertaking, unless the law provides for the payment of compensation for the property acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, it is to be determined." Article 31 (2) before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, followed substantially the same pattern. 96. Prior to the amendment of Article 31 (2) this Court interpreted the expression "compensation" as meaning "full indemnification". Patanjali Sastri, C. J., in State of West Bengal v. Mrs. Bela Banerjee, (1954) SCR 558 = (AIR 1954 SC 170 ) in interpreting the guarantee under Article 31 (2), speaking on behalf of the Court observed: "While it is true that the legislature is given the discretionary powers of laying down the principles which should govern the determination of the amount to be given to the owner for the property appropriated, such principles must ensure that what is determined as payable must be compensation that is, a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of. Within the limits of this basic requirement of full indemnification of the expropriated owner, the Constitution allows free play to the legislative judgment as to what principles, should guide the determination of the amount payable. Whether such principles take into account all the elements which make up the true value of the property appropriated and exclude matters which are to be neglected, is a justifiable issue to be adjudicated by the Court." In the view of the learned Chief Justice the expression "just equivalent" meant "full indemnification" and the expropriated owner was on that account entitled to the market value of the property on the date of deprivation of the property. This case was decided under a statute enacted before the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act 1955. The principle of that case was approved in N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Asst. Collector, Thana Prant, Thana, (1965) 1 SCR 636 = (AIR 1965 SC 1096 ) - a case under the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act, 1948, and invoking the guarantee under Section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935; in Union of India v. Kamlabai Harjiwandas, (1968) 1 SCR 463 = (AIR 1968 SC 377 ) -a case under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952; and in State of Madras v. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar, (1964) 6 SCR 936 = (AIR 1965 SC 190 ) - a case arising under the Madras Lignite Acquisition of Land Act, 1953. 97. Article 31 (2) was amended with effect from April 27, 1955, by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. By sub-clause (2A) a definition of acquisition or requisitioning of properties was supplied and certain other formal changes were also made, with the important reservation that "no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate". In cases arising under statutes enacted after April 27, 1955, this Court held that the expression "compensation" in Article 31 (2) as amended continued to mean "just equivalent" as under the unamended clause: P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector, Madras, (1965) 1 SCR 614 = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) - under the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act 23 of 1961; Union of India v. Metal Corporation of India Ltd., (1967) 1 SCR 255 = (AIR 1967 SC 637 ) under the Metal Corporation of India (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act 44 of 1955; Lachhman Dass v. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, AIR 1969 SC 1125 under Sec. 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954, as amended by Act 2 of 1960. In Ranojirao Shindes case, (1968) 3 SCR 489 = (AIR 1968 SC 1053 ) dealing with a case under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Cash Grants Act 16 of 1963 it was observed that the compensation referred to in Article 31 (2) is a just equivalent of the value of the property taken. But this Court in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634 observed that compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of property is not, by the application of any principles, determinable as a precise sum, and by calling it a "just" or "fair" equivalent, no definiteness could be attached thereto; that valuation of lands, buildings and incorporeal rights has to be made on the application of different principles, e.g., capitalization of net income at appropriate rates, reinstatement, determination of original value reduced by depreciation, break-up value of properties which had outgrown their utility; that the rules relating to determination of value of lands, buildings, machinery and other classes of property differ, and the application of several methods or principles lead to widely divergent amounts, and since compensation is not capable of precise determination by the application of recognized rules, by qualifying the expression "compensation" by the adjective "just", the determination was made more controversial. It was observed that the Parliament amended the Constitution by the Fourth Amendment Act declaring that adequacy of compensation fixed by the Legislature as amended according to the principles specified by the Legislature for determination will not be justiciable. It was then observed that: "The right declared by the Constitution guarantees that compensation shall be given before a person is compulsorily expropriated of his property for a public purpose. What is fixed as compensation by statute, or by the application of principles specified for determination of compensation is guaranteed, it does not mean, however, that something fixed or determined by the application of specified principle which is illusory or can in no sense be regarded as compensation must be upheld by the Courts for, to do so, would be to grant charter of arbitrariness and permit a device to defeat the constitutional guarantee. But compensation fixed or determined on principles specified by the Legislature cannot be permitted to be challenged on the somewhat indefinite plea that it is not a just or fair equivalent. Principles may be challenged on the ground that they are irrelevant to the determination of compensation, but not on the plea that what is awarded as a result of the application of those principles is not just or fair compensation. A challenge to a statute that the principles specified by it do not award a just equivalent will be in clear violation of the constitutional declaration that inadequacy of compensation provided is not justiciable. 98. This Court held in Mrs. Bela Banerjees case, 1954 SCR 558 = (AIR 1954 SC 170 ) that by the guarantee of the right to compensation for compulsory acquisition under Article 31 (2), before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, the owner was entitled to receive a "just equivalent" or "full indemnification". In P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR 614 = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) this Court held that notwithstanding the amendment of Article 31 (2) by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, and even after the addition of the words "and no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate", the expression "compensation" occurring in Article 31 (2) after the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act continued to have the same meaning as it had in Section 299 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 31 (2) before it was amended, viz., "just equivalent" or "full indemnification". 99. There was apparently no dispute that Article 31 (2) before and after it was amended guaranteed a right to compensation for compulsory acquisition of property and that by giving to the owner, for compulsory acquisition of his property, compensation which was illusory, or determined by the application of principles which were irrelevant, the constitutional guarantee of compensation was not complied with. There was difference of opinion on one matter between the decisions in P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR 614 = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) and Shantilal Mangaldass case, AIR 1969 SC 634 . In the former case it was observed that the constitutional guarantee was satisfied only if a just equivalent of the property was given to the owner: in the latter case it was held that "compensation" being itself incapable of any precise determination, no definite connotation could be attached thereto by calling it "just equivalent" or "full indemnification", and under Acts enacted after the amendment of Article 31 (2) it is not open to the Court to call in question the law providing for compensation on the ground that it is inadequate, whether the amount of compensation is fixed by the law or is be determined according to principles specified therein. It was observed in the judgment in Shantilal Mangaldas case, AIR 1969 SC 634 at p. 651: "Whatever may have been the meaning of the expression "compensation" under the unamended Article 31 (2), when the Parliament has expressly enacted under the amended clause that "no such law shall be called in question in any Court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate", it was intended clearly to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Court an enquiry that what is fixed or determined by the application of the principles specified as compensation does not award to the owner a just equivalent of what he is deprived." In P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR 614 = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) again the Court in dealing with the effect of the amendment observed (at p. 627) (of SCR)= (At. p.1024 of AIR): "Therefore, a more reasonable interpretation is that neither the principles prescribing the "just equivalent" nor the "just equivalent" can be questioned by the Court on the ground of the inadequacy of the compensation fixed or arrived at by the working of the principles. To illustrate a law is made to acquire a house; its value at the time of acquisition has to be fixed; there are many modes of valuation, namely, estimate by an engineer, value reflected by comparable sales, capitalisation of rent and similar others. The application of different principles may lead to different results. The adoption of one principle may give a higher value and the adoption of another principle may give a lesser value. But nonetheless they are principles on which and the manner in which compensation is determined. The Court cannot obviously say that the law should have adopted one principle and not the other for it relates only to the question of adequacy. On the other hand, if a law lays down principles which are not relevant to the property acquired, or to the value of the property at or about the time it is acquired, it may be said that they are not principles contemplated by Article 31 (2) of the Constitution." The Court then applied that principle to the facts of the case and held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961, which provided that - (i) the owner of land acquired for housing shall get only the value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or an amount equivalent to the average market value of the land during the last five years immediately preceding such date, whichever was less; (ii) the owner shall get a solatium of only 5 per cent, and not 15 per cent, and (iii) in valuing the land acquired any increase in its suitability or adaptability for any use other than the use to which the land was put at the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall not be taken into consideration did not impair the right to receive compensation.The Court observed at p. 631 (of SCR) = (At p. 1026 of AIR): "In awarding compensation if the potential value of the land is excluded, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded is the just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of. But such an exclusion only pertains to the method of ascertaining the compensation. One of the elements that should properly be taken into account in fixing the compensation is omitted: it results in the adequacy of the compensation, * * * We, therefore, hold that the Amending Act does not offend Article 31 (2) of the Constitution." The compensation provided by the Madras Act, according to the principles specified, was not the full market value at the date of acquisition. It did not amount to "full indemnification" of the owner: the Court still held that the law did not offend the guarantee under Article 31 (2) as amended, because the objection was only as to the adequacy of compensation. In Shantilal Mangaldas case, AIR 1969 SC 634 , the Court held that the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, Article 31 (2) guarantees a right to receive compensation for loss of property compulsorily acquired, but compensation does not mean a just equivalent of the property. If compensation is provided by law to be paid and the compensation is not illusory or is not determinable by the application of irrelevant principles, the law is not open to challenge on the ground that compensation fixed or determined to be paid is inadequate. 100. Both the lines of thought which converge in the ultimate result, support the view that the principle specified by the law for determination of compensation is beyond the pale of challenge, if it is relevant to the determination of compensation and is a recognised principle applicable in the determination of compensation for property compulsorily acquired and the principle is appropriate in determining the value of the class of property sought to be acquired. On the application of the view expressed in P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR 614 = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) or in Shantilal Mangaldass case, AIR 1969 SC 634 , the Act, in our judgment, is liable to be struck down as it fails to provide to the expropriated banks compensation determined according to relevant principles. Section 4 of the Act transfers the undertaking of every named bank to and vests it in the corresponding new bank. Section 6(1) provides for payment of compensation for acquisition of the undertaking, and the compensation is to be determined in accordance with the principles specified in the Second Schedule. Section 6 (2) then provides that though separate valuations are made in respect of the several matters specified in Sch. II of the Act, the amount of compensation shall be deemed to be a single compensation. Compensation being the equivalent in terms of money of the property compulsorily acquired, the principle for determination of compensation is intended to award to the expropriated owner the value of the property acquired.The science of valuation of property recognizes several principles or methods for determining the value to be paid as compensation to the owner for loss of his property; there are different methods applicable to different classes of property in the determination of the value to be paid as recompense for loss of his property. A method appropriate to the determination of value of one class of property may be wholly inappropriate in determining the value of another class of property.If an appropriate method or principle for determination of compensation is applied, the fact that by the application of another principle which is also appropriate, a different value is reached, the Court will not be justified in entertaining the contention that out of the two appropriate methods, one more generous to the owner should have been applied by the Legislature. 101.We are unable to hold that a principle specified by the Parliament for determining compensation of the property to be acquired is conclusive. If that view be accepted, the Parliament will be invested with a charter of arbitrariness and by abuse of legislative process, the constitutional guarantee of the right to compensation may be severely impaired. The principle specified must be appropriate to the determination of compensation for the particular class of property sought to be acquired. If several principles are appropriate and one is selected for determination of the value of the property to be acquired, selection of that principle to the exclusion of other principles is not open to challenge, for the selection must be left to the wisdom of the Parliament. 102. The broad object underlying the principle of valuation is to award to the owner the equivalent of his property with its existing advantages and its potentialities. Where there is an established market for the property acquired the problem of valuation presents little difficulty. Where there is no established market for the property, the object of the principle of valuation must be to pay to the owner for what he has lost, including the benefit of advantages present as well as future, without taking into account the urgency of acquisition, the disinclination of the owner to part with the property, and the benefit which the acquirer is likely to obtain by the acquisition.Under the Land Acquisition Acts compensation paid is the value to the owner together with all its potentialities and its special adaptability if the land is peculiarly suitable for a particular use, if it gives an enhanced value at the date of acquisition. 103.The important methods of determination of compensation are - (i) market value determined from sales of comparable properties, proximate in time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing the same or similar advantages and subject to the same or similar disadvantages.Market value is the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase; (ii) capitalization of the net annual profit out of the property at a rate equal in normal cases to the return from giltedged securities. Ordinarily value of the property may be determined by capitalizing the net annual value obtainable in the market at the date of the notice of acquisition, (iii) where the property is a house, expenditure likely to be incurred for constructing a similar house, and reduced by the depreciation for the number of years since it was constructed; (iv) principle of reinstatement, where it is satisfactorily established that reinstatement in some other place is bona fide intended, there being no general market for the property for the purpose for which it is devoted (the purpose being a public purpose) and would have continued to be devoted, but for compulsory acquisition. Here compensation will be assessed on the basis of reasonable cost of reinstatement; (v) when the property has outgrown its utility and it is reasonably incapable of economic use, it may be valued as land plus the break-up value of the structure. But the fact that the acquirer does not intend to use the property for which it is used at the time of acquisition and desires to demolish it or use it for other purpose is irrelevant; and (vi) the property to be acquired has ordinarily to be valued as a unit. Normally an aggregate of the value of different components will not be the value of the unit. 104. These are, however, not the only methods. The method of determining the value of property by the application of an appropriate multiplier to the net annual income or profit is a satisfactory method of valuation of lands with buildings, only if the land is fully developed, i.e., it has been put to full use legally permissible and economically justifiable, and the income out of the property is the normal commercial and not a controlled return or a return depreciated on account of special circumstances. If the property is not fully developed, or the return is not commercial the method may yield a misleading result. 105.The expression "property" in Article 31 (2) as in Entry 42 of List III is wide enough to include an undertaking, and an undertaking subject to obligations may be compulsorily acquired under a law made in exercise of power under Entry 42, List III.The language of the amended clause (2) of Article 31 compared with the language of the clause before it was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act leaves no room for doubt. Before it was amended, the guarantee covered the acquisition of "property movable or immovable including, any interest in, or in any company owing any commercial or industrial undertaking. In the amended clause only the word "property" is used, deleting the expressions which did not add to its connotation.But when an undertaking is acquired as a unit the principles for determination of compensation must be relevant and also appropriate to the acquisition of the entire undertaking. In determining the appropriate rate of the net profits the return from gilt-edged securities may, unless it is otherwise found unsuitable, be adopted. 106. Compensation to be determined under the Act is for acquisition of the undertaking, but the Act instead of providing for valuing the entire undertaking as a unit provides for determining the value of some only of the components, which constitute the undertaking, and reduced by the liabilities. It also provides different methods of determining compensation in respect of each such component. This method for determination of compensation is prima facie not a method relevant to the determination of compensation for acquisition of the undertaking. Aggregate of the value of components is not necessarily the value of the entirety of a unit of property acquired, especially when the property is a going concern, with an organized business. On that ground alone, acquisition of the undertaking is liable to be declared invalid, for it impairs the constitutional guarantee for payment of compensation for acquisition of property by law. Even if it be assumed that the aggregate value of the different components will be equal to the value of the undertaking of the named bank as a going concern the principles specified, in our judgment, do not give a true recompense to the banks for the loss of the undertaking. Schedule II by clause (1) provides: "The compensation x x x in respect of the acquisition of the undertaking thereof shall be an amount equal to the sum total of the value of the assets of the existing bank as on the commencement of this Act, calculated in accordance with the provisions of Part I, less the sum total of the liabilities computed and obligations of the existing bank calculated in accordance with the provisions of Part II." For the purpose of Part I "assets" mean the total of the heads (a) to (h) and the expression "liabilities" is defined as meaning the total amount of all outside liabilities existing at the commencement of the Act and contingent liabilities which the corresponding new bank may reasonably be expected to be required to meet out of its own resources. Compensation payable to the named banks is accordingly the aggregate of some of the components of the undertaking, reduced by the aggregate of liabilities determined in the manner provided in the Schedule.It appears clear that in determining the compensation for undertaking - (i) certain important classes of assets are omitted from the heads (a) to (h); (ii) the method specified for valuation of lands and buildings is not relevant to determination of compensation, and the value determined thereby in certain circumstances is illusory as compensation; and (iii) the principle for determination of the aggregate value of liabilities is also irrelevant. 107. The undertaking of a banking company taken over as a going concern would ordinarily include the goodwill and the value of the unexpired period of long-term leases in the prevailing conditions in urban areas. But good-will of the banks is not one of the items in the assets in the Schedule, and in Cl. (f) though provision is made for including a part of the premium paid in respect of leasehold properties proportionate to the unexpired period, no value of the leasehold interest for the unexpired period is given. 108. Goodwill of a business is an intangible asset: it is the whole advantage of the reputation and connections formed with the customers together with the circumstances making the connection durable. It is that component of the total value of the undertaking which is attributable to the ability of the concern to earn profits over a course of years or in excess of normal amounts because of its reputation, location and other features: Trego v. Hunt, 1896 AC 7. Goodwill of an undertaking therefore is the value of the attraction to customers arising from the name, and reputation for skill, integrity, efficient business management, or efficient service. 109. Business of banking thrives on its reputation for probity of its dealings, efficiency of the service it provides, courtesy and promptness of the staff, and above all the confidence it inspires among the customers for the safety of the funds entrusted.The Reserve Bank, it is true, exercises stringent control over the transactions which banks carry on in India. Existence of these powers and exercise thereof may and do ensure to a certain extent the safety of the founds entrusted to the Banks,But the business which a bank attracts still depends upon the confidence which the depositor reposes in the management.A bank is not like a grocers shop: a customer does not extend his patronage to a bank merely because it has a branch easily accessible to him. Outside the public sector, there are 50 Indian scheduled banks, 13 foreign banks, besides 16 non-scheduled banks. The deposits in the banks not taken over under the Act range between Rs. 400 crores and a few lakhs of rupees. Deposits attracted by the major private commercial banks are attributable largely to the personal goodwill of the management. The regulatory provisions of the Banking Companies Act and the control which the Reserve Bank exercises over the banks may to a certain extent reduce the chance of the resources of the bank being misused, but a banking company for its business still largely depends upon the reputation of its management. We are unable to agree with the contention raised in the Unions affidavit that a banking establishment has no goodwill, nor are we able to accept the plea raised by the Attorney General that the value of the goodwill of bank is insignificant and it may be ignored in valuing the undertaking as a going concern. 110. Under clause (f) of Schedule II provision is made for valuing a proportionate part of the premium paid in respect of all leasehold properties to the unexpired duration of the leases, but there is no provision made for payment of compensation for the unexpired period of the leases.Having regard to the present day conditions it is clear that with rent control on leases operating in various States the unexpired period of leases has also a substantial value. 111.The value determined by excluding important components of the undertaking, such as the goodwill and value of the unexpired period of leases, will not, in our judgment, be compensation for the undertaking. 112. The other defects in the method of valuation, it was claimed by Mr. Palkhivala, are the inclusion of certain assets such as cash, choses in action and similar assets, which under the law are not regarded as capable of being acquired as property. This inclusion, it is contended, vitiates the scheme of acquisition. Under clause (a) of Part I-Assets - the amount of cash in hand and with the Reserve Bank and the State Bank of India (including foreign currency notes which shall be converted at the market rate of exchange) are liable to be included. Cash in hand is not an item which is capable of being compulsorily acquired, not because it is not property,but because taking over the cash and providing for acquisition thereof, compensation payable at some future date amounts to levying a "forced loan" in the guise of acquisition.This Court in State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, 1952 SCR 889 = (AIR 1952 SC 252 ) held that cash and choses in action are not capable of compulsory acquisition. That view was repeated by this Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 1122 = (AIR 1958 SC 328 ) and Ranojirao Shindes case, (1968) 3 SCR 489 = (AIR 1968 SC 1053 ).We do not propose to express our opinion on the question whether in adopting the method of determination of compensation, by aggregating the value of assets which constitute the undertaking, the rule that cash and choses in action are incapable of compulsory acquisition may be applied. 113. Under Item (e) the value of any land or buildings is one of the assets. The first Explanation provides that for the purpose of this clause (clause (e) ) "value" shall be deemed to be the market value of the land or buildings, but where such market value exceeds the "ascertained value" determined in the manner specified in Explanation 2, the value shall be deemed to mean such "ascertained value". The value of the land and buildings is therefore the market value or the "ascertained value" whichever is less. Under Explanation 2, clause (1) "ascertained value" in respect of buildings which are wholly occupied on the date of the commencement of the Act is twelve times the amount of the annual rent or the rent for which the building may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year reduced by certain specific items.This provision, in our judgment, does not lay down a relevant principle of valuation of buildings. In the first place, making a provision for payment of capitalised annual rental at twelve times the amount of rent cannot reasonably be regarded as payment of compensation having regard to the conditions prevailing in the money market. Capitalization of annual rental which is generally based on controlled rent under some State Acts at rates pegged down to the rates prevailing in 1940 and on the footing that investment in building yields 8 1/3 per cent. return furnishes a wholly misleading result which cannot be called compensation.Value of immovable property has spiralled during the last few years and the rental which is mostly controlled does not bear any reasonable relation to the economic return from property. If the building is partly occupied by the Bank itself and partly by a tenant, the ascertained value will be twelve times the annual rental received, and the rent for which the remaining part occupied by the Bank may reasonably be expected to be let out. By the Act the corresponding new banks take over vacant possession of the lands and buildings belonging to the named banks. There is in the present conditions considerable value attached to vacant business premises in urban areas. True compensation for vacant premises can be ascertained by finding out the market value of comparable premises at or about the time of the vesting of the undertaking and not by capitalising the rental - actual or estimated. Vacant premises have a considerably larger value than business premises which are occupied by tenants. The Act instead of taking into account the value of the premises as vacant premises adopted a method which cannot be regarded as relevant. Prima facie, this would not give any reliable basis for determining the compensation for the land and buildings. 114. Again in determining the compensation under clause (e), the annual rent is reduced by several outgoings and the balance is capitalized. The first item of deduction is one-sixth of the amount thereof on account of maintenance and repairs. Whether the building is old or new, whether it requires or does not requires maintenance or repairs 16 2/3 per cent. of the total amount of rent is liable to be deducted towards maintenance and repairs. The vice of items (v) and (vi) of clause (1) of Explanation 2 is that they provide for deduction of a capital charge out of the annual rental which according to no rational system of valuing property by capitalization of the rental method is admissible.Under item (v) where the building is subject to a mortgage or other capital charge, the amount of interest on such mortgage or charge, and under item (vi) where the building has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital are liable to be deducted from the annual rental for determining the ascertained value. These encumbrances are also liable to be deducted under the head "liabilities". A simple illustration may suffice to pinpoint the inequity of the method. In respect of a building owned by a bank of the value of Rs. 10 lakhs and mortgaged for say Rs. 7,50,000 interest at the rate of 8 per cent (which may be regarded as the current commercial rate) would amount to Rs. 60,000.The estimated annual rental which would ordinarily not exceed Rs. 60,000 has under clause (e) to be reduced in the first instance by other outgoing. The assets would show a minus figure as value of the building, and on the liabilities side the entire amount of mortgage liability would be debited. The method provided by the Act permits the annual interest on the amount of the encumbrance to be deducted before capitalization, and the capitalized value is again reduced by the amount of the encumbrance. In effect, a single debt is, in determining the compensation debited twice, first in computing the value of assets, and again, in computing the liabilities. 115. We are unable to accept the argument raised by the Attorney-General that under the head "liabilities" in Part II only those mortgages or capital charges in respect of which the amount has fallen due are liable to be included on the liabilities side. Under the head "liabilities" the total amount of all outside liabilities existing at the commencement of the Act, and all contingent liabilities which the corresponding new bank may reasonably be expected to be required to meet out of its own resources on or after the date of commencement of the Act will have to be included. When even contingent liabilities are included in the total amount of all outside liabilities, a mortgage debt or capital charge must be taken into account in determining the liabilities by which the aggregate of the value of the assets is to be reduced even if the period of the mortgage or capital charge has not expired. The liability under a mortgage or capital charge exists whether the period stipulated under the deed creating the encumbrance has expired of not. 116. Under Cl. (2) of Explain. 2, it is provided that in the case of building which are partly occupied, the valuation shall be made on the basis of the "plinth area" occupied and multiplying it by the proportion which that area bears to the total plinth area of the buildings. The use of the expression "plinth area" appears to be unfortunate. What was intended is "floor area". It the expression "plinth area" is understood to mean "floor area no fault may be found with the principle underlying clause (2) of Explanation 2. 117. Under Clause (3) of Explanation 2, where there is open land which has no building erected thereon, or which is not appurtenant to any building, the value is to be determined "with reference to the prices at which sales or purchases of similar or comparable lands have been made during the period of three years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of" the Act. Whereas the value of the open land is to be the market value, the value of the land with building to be taken into account is the value determined by the method of capitalization of annual rent or market value whichever is less. The Explanation does not take into account whether the construction on the land fully develops the land, and the rental is economic. 118. We are, therefore, unable to hold that item (e) specifies a relevant principle for determination of compensation for lands and buildings.It is not disputed that the major Banks occupy their own buildings in important towns, and investments in buildings constitute a part of the assets of the Banks which cannot be treated as negligible. By providing a method of valuation of buildings which is not relevant the amount determined cannot be regarded as compensation. 119. We have already referred to item (f) under which a proportionate part of the premium paid is liable to be included in the assets but not the value for the unexpired period of the leases. Item (h) provides for the inclusion of the market or realizable value, as may be appropriate, of other assets appearing on the books of the bank, no value being allowed for capitalized expenses, such as share-selling commission, organizational expenses and brokerage, losses incurred and similar other items. 120. Mr. Palkhivala urged that certain assets which do not appear in the books of account still have substantial value and they are omitted from consideration in computing the aggregate of the value of assets.Counsel said that every bank is permitted to have secret reserve and those secret reserves may not appear in the books of account of the banks. We are unable to accept that contention. A banking company is entitled to withhold from the balance-sheet its secret reserve, but there must be some account in respect of these secret reserves. The expression "books of the Bank" may not be equated with balance-sheets or the books of account only. 121. The expression "liabilities" existing at the commencement of the Act includes all debts due or to become due. Under the head "liabilities" contingent liabilities which the corresponding new bank may reasonably be expected to be required to meet out of its own resources on or after the date of commencement of the Act are to be debited. The clause is body drafted. The present value of the contingent liabilities at the date of the acquisition and not the total contingent liabilities may on any rational system of accounting be debited against the aggregate value of the assets.For instance, if a banking company is liable to pay to its employees gratuity, the present value of the liability to pay gratuity at the date of the acquisition made on actual calculation may alone be debited, and not the total face value of the liability. 122. The Attorney-General contended that even if the goodwill of a banking company is of substantial value, and inclusion of the goodwill is not provided for, or the value of buildings and lands is not the market value or that there is a departure from recognized principles for determination of compensation, the deficiencies in the Act result merely in inadequate compensation within the meaning of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution and the Act cannot on that account be challenged as invalid.We are unable to agree with that contention. The constitution guarantees a right to compensation-an equivalent in money of the property compulsorily acquired. That is the basic guarantee. The law must therefore provide compensation, and for determining compensation relevant principles must be specified; if the principles are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not compensation. 123. The Attorney-General also contended that if in consequence of the adoption of the method of valuation, an amount determined as compensation is not illusory, the Courts have no jurisdiction to question the validity of the law, unless the law is expropriatory, for, in the ultimate analysis the grievance relates to the adequacy of compensation. He contended that the exclusion of one of the elements in fixing the compensation, or application of a principle which is not a recognized principle, results in inadequate price, and is not open to challenge, and relied in support upon the observations made in P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR = (AIR 1965 SC 1017 ) (at p. 631 of SCR) = (at p. 1026 of AIR) which we have already quoted in another context in relation to the challenge to the validity of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961, which excluded in determining compensation the potential value of the land. The Court held that exclusion of potential value amounted to giving inadequate compensation and was not a fraud on power. The principle of that case has no application when valuation of an undertaking is sought to be made by breaking it up into several heads of assets and important heads are excluded and others valued by the application of irrelevant principles, or principles of which the only claim for acceptance is their novelty.The Constitution guarantees that the expropriated owner must be given the value of his property, i. e., what may be regarded reasonably as compensation for loss of the property and that such compensation should not be illusory and not reached by the application of irrelevant principles. In our view, determination of compensation to be paid for the acquisition of an undertaking as a unit after awarding compensation for some items which go to make up the undertaking and omitting important items amounts to adopting an irrelevant principle in the determination of the value of the undertaking, and does not furnish compensation to the expropriated owner. 124. The Attorney-General contended that the total value of the undertaking of the named banks even calculated according to the method provided in Schedule II exceeded the total market value of the shares, and on that account there is no ground for holding that the law providing for compensation denies to the share-holders the guarantee of the right to compensation under Article 31 (2). But there is no evidence on this part of the case. 125. Compensation may be provided under a statute, otherwise than in the form of money: it may be given as equivalent of money, e. g., a bond. But in judging whether the law provides for compensation, the money value at the date of expropriation of what is given as compensation, must be considered. If the rate of interest compared with the ruling commercial rate is low, it will reduce the present value of the bond. The Constitution guarantees a right to compensation-an equivalent of the property expropriated and the right to compensation cannot be converted into a loan on terms which do not fairly compare with the prevailing commercial terms. If the statute in providing for compensation devises a scheme for payment of compensation by giving it in the form of bonds, and the present value of what is determined to be given is thereby substantially reduced, the statute impairs the guarantee of compensation. 126.A scheme for payment of compensation may take many forms. If the present value of what is given reasonably approximates to what is determined as compensation according to the principles provided by the statute, no fault may be found. But if the law seeks to convert the compensation determined into a forced loan, or to give compensation in the form of a bond of which the market value at the date of expropriation does not approximate the amount determined as compensation, the Court must consider whether what is given is in truth compensation which is inadequate, or that it is not compensation at all. Since we are of the view that the scheme in Schedule II of the Act suffers from the vice that it does not award compensation according to any recognized principles, we need not dilate upon this matter further. We need only observe that by giving to the expropriated owner compensation in bonds of the face-value of the amount determined maturing after many years and carrying a certain rate of interest, the constitutional guarantee is not necessarily complied with. If the market value of the bond is not approximately equal to the face-value, the expropriated owner may raise a grievance that the guarantee under Article 31 (2) is impaired. 127. We are of the view that by the method adopted for valuation of the undertaking, important items of assets have been excluded, and principles some of which are irrelevant and some not recognised are adopted. What is determined by the adoption of the method adopted in Schedule II does not award to the named banks compensation for loss of their undertaking.The ultimate result substantially impairs the guarantee of compensation, and on that account the Act is liable to be struck down. IV. Infringement of the guarantee of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301:- 128. In the view we have taken the provisions relating to determination and payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the undertaking of the named banks impair the guarantee under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution, we do not deem it necessary to decide whether Act 22 of 1969 violates the guarantee of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse in respect of the (1) agency business; (2) business of guarantee and indemnity carried on by the named banks. V. Validity of the retrospective operation given to Act 22 of 1969 by S. 1 (2) and Section 27:- 129. The argument raised by Mr. Palkhivala that, even if the Act is within the competence of the Parliament and does not impair the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g), and 31(2) in their prospective operation, Section 1(2) and S. 27(2), (3) and (4) which give retrospective operation as from July 19, 1969, are invalid, need not also be considered. 130. Nor does the argument about the validity of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 11 and Section 26 of the Act survive for consideration. 131. Accordingly we hold that- (a) the Act is within the legislative competence of the Parliament; but (b) it makes hostile discrimination against the named banks in that it prohibits the named banks from carrying on banking business, whereas other Banks -Indian and Foreign-are permitted to carry on banking business, and even new Banks may be formed which may engage in banking business; (c) it in reality restricts the named banks from carrying on business other than banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; and (d) that the Act violates the guarantee of compensation under Article 31 (2) in that it provides for giving certain amounts determined according to principles which are not relevant in the determination of compensation of the undertaking of the named banks and by the method prescribed the amounts so declared cannot be regarded as compensation. 132.Section 4 of the Act is a kingpin in the mechanism of the Act. Section 4, 5 and 6 read with Schedule II provide for the statutory transfer and vesting of the undertaking of the named banks in the corresponding new banks and prescribe the method of determining compensation for expropriation of the undertaking. Those provisions are, in our judgment, void as they impair the fundamental guarantee under Article 31 (2). Sections 4, 5 and 6 and Schedule II are not severable from the rest of the Act. The Act must, in its entirety, be declared void.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]17. The judgment of this Court in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, (1964) 4 SCR 99   = (AIR 1963 SC 1811  ) has no bearing on this question. In that case in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the State Trading Corporation challenged the infringement of its right to hold property and to carry on business under Article 19 (1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, and this Court opined that the Corporation not being a citizen was incompetent to enforce the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Nor has the judgment in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 885   = (AIR 1965 SC 40  ) any bearing on the question arising in these petitions. In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by a Company challenging the levy of sales-tax by the state of Bihar, two shareholders were also impleaded as petitioners. It was urged on behalf of the shareholders that in substance the interests of the Company and of the shareholders were identical and the shareholders were entitled to maintain the petition. The Court rejected that contention, observing that what the Company could not achieve directly, it could not relying upon the doctrine of "lifting the veil" achieve indirectly. The petitioner seeks in the case to challenge the infringement of his own rights and not of the Banks of which he is a shareholder and a director and with which he as accounts - current and fixed deposit18. It was urged that in any event the guarantee of freedom of trade does not occur in Part III of the Constitution, and the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a petition for breach of that guarantee in this Court. But the petitioner does not seek by these petitions to enforce the guarantee of freedom of trade and commerce in Article 301: he claims that in enacting the Act the Parliament has violated a constitutional restriction imposed by Part XIII on its legislative power and in determining the extent to which his fundamental freedoms are impaired, the statute which the Parliament is incompetent to enact must be ignored19. It is not necessary to consider whether Article 31A (1)(d) of the Constitution bars the petitioners claim to enforce his rights as a director. The Act prima facie does not (though the Ordinance purported to) seek to extinguish or modify the right of the petitioner as a director:it seeks to take away expressly the right of the named Banks to carry on banking business, while reserving their right to carry on business other than banking. Assuming that he is not entitled to set up his right to enforce his guaranteed rights as a director, the petition will not still fail.The Preliminary objection raised by the Attorney-General against the maintainability of the petitions must fail27. The Ordinance has been repealed by Act 22 of 1969 and the question of its validity is now academic.It may assume significance only if we hold that Act 22 of 1969 is valid. Since the Act is in our view invalid for reasons hereinafter stated, we accede to the submission of the Attorney-General that we need express no opinion in this case on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court to examine whether the condition relating to satisfaction of the President was fulfilled32. The argument raised by Mr. Setalvad, intervening on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and the State of Jammu and Kashmir, that the Parliament is competent to enact Act 22 of 1969, because the subject-matter of the Act is "with respect to" regulation of trading corporations and matters subsidiary and incidental thereto, and on that account is covered in its entirety by Entries 43 and 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, cannot be upheld. Entry 43 deals with incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations including banking companies. Law regulating the business of a corporation is not a law with respect to regulation of a corporation. In List I entries expressly relating to trade and commerce are Entries 41 and 42. Again several entries in List I relate to activities commercial in character. Entry 45 "Banking"; Entry 46 "Bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and other like instruments", Entry 47 "Insurance"; Entry 48 "Stock exchanges and future markets"; Entry 49 "Patents, inventions and designs". There are several entries relating to activities commercial as well as non-commercial in List II - Entry 21 "Fisheries"; Entry 24 "Industries x x x"; Entry 25 "Gas and Gas works"; Entry 26 "Trade and commerce"; Entry 30 "Money-lending and money-lenders"; Entry 31 "Inns and Inn-keeping"; Entry 33 "Theatres and dramatic performances, cinemas etc.". We are unable to accede to the argument that the State Legislatures are competent to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of those entries only when the commercial activities are carried on by individuals and not when they are carried on by Corporations32-C. It is necessary to determine the true scope of "banking" in Entry 45 List I, the meaning of the expression "property", and the limitations on the power of the Parliament to legislate in respect of acquisition of property in Entry 42, List III. Matters not in contest may be eliminated. Power to legislate for setting up corporations to carry on banking and other business and to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to provide for administration of the corporations is conferred upon the Parliament by Entries 43, 44 and 45 of the first list. Power to enact that the named banks shall not carry on banking business (as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act) is incidental to the power to legislate in respect of banking. Power to legislate for determination of compensation and method of payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the assets of the named banks, in so far as it relates to banking business is also within the power of the Parliament33.The expression "banking" is not defined in any Indian statute except the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It may be recalled that by Section 5 (b) of that Act "banking" means "the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft or otherwise". The definition did not include other commercial activities which a banking institution may engage in38.The legislative entry in List I of the Seventh Schedule is "Banking" and not "Banker" or "Banks". To include within the connotation of the expression "Banking" in Entry 45 of List I, power to legislate in respect of all commercial activities which a banker by the custom of bankers or authority of law engages in, would result in rewriting the Constitution. Investment of power to legislate on a designated topic covers all matters incidental to the topic. A legislative entry being expressed in a broad designation indicating the contour of plenary power must receive a meaning conducive to the widest amplitude, subject however to limitations inherent in the federal scheme which distributes legislative power between the Union and the constituent units. But the field of "banking" cannot be extended to include trading activities which not being incidental to banking encroach upon the substance of the entry "trade and commerce" in List II39. Rejection of the argument of the Attorney-General does not lend any practical support to the argument of Mr. Palkhivala that Act 22 of 1969, to the extent it makes provisions in respect of the undertaking of the named banks relating to non-banking business, is ultra vires the Parliament. In the first instance there is no evidence that the named banks were before July 19, 1969, carrying on non-banking business distinct and independent of the banking business, or that the banks held distinct assets for any non-banking business, apart from the assets of the banking business. Again by Act 22 of 1969 the corresponding banks are entitled to engage in business of banking and non-banking which the named banks were engaged in or competent to engage in prior to July 19, 1969, and the name banks are entitled to engage in business other than banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, but not the business of banking. By enacting that the corresponding new banks may carry on business specified in Section 6 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act and that the named banks shall not carry on banking business as defined in Section 5 (b) of that Act, the impugned Act did not encroach upon any entry in the State List. By Section 15 (2) (e) of the impugned Act the named banks are expressly reserved the right to carry on business other than banking, and it is not claimed that thereby there is any encroachment upon the State List. Exercise of the power to legislate for acquisition of the undertaking of the named banks also does not trespass upon the State List41. Transfer of and vesting in the State Corporations of the entire undertaking of a going concern is contemplated in many Indian statutes: e.g, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, Sections 6, 7 and 7A; Air Corporation Act, 1953, Sections 16 and 17; Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920, Sections 3 and 4, State Bank of India Act, 1955, Section 6(2), (3) and (4); State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Section 36 AE: and Cotton Textile Companies Act, 1967, Ss. 5 (1) and (50 1 (6 (1)?) Power to legislate for acquisition of "property" in Entry 42, List III therefore, includes the power to legislate for acquisition of an undertaking. But, says Mr. Palkhivala, liabilities of the banks which are included in the connotation of the expression "undertaking" cannot be treated as "property". It is however the assets, rights and obligations of a going concern which constitute the undertaking; the obligations and liabilities of the business form an integral part of the undertaking, and for compulsory acquisition cannot be divorced from the assets, rights and privileges. The expression "property" in Entry 42, List III has a wide connotation, and it includes not only assets, but the organisation, liabilities and obligations of a going concern as a unit. A law may therefore, be enacted for compulsory acquisition of an undertaking as defined in Section 5 of Act 22 of 196942. The contention raised by Mr. Palkhivala that the Parliament is incompetent to legislate for acquisition of the named banks in so far as it relates to assets of the non-banking business fails for two reasons - (i) that there is no evidence that the named banks held any assets for any distinct non-banking business; and (ii) that the acquisition is not shown to fall within an entry in List II of the Seventh Schedule45. The constitutional scheme declares the right to property of the individual and then delimits it by two different provisions:Article 19 (5) authorizing the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of that right, and clause (1) and (2) of Article 31 recognizing the authority of the State to make laws for taking the property. Limitations under Article 19 (5) and Article 31 are not generically different, for the law authorizing the exercise of the power to take the property of an individual for a public purpose or to ensure the well-being of the community, and the law authorising the imposition of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (5) are intended to advance the larger public interest. It is true that the guarantee against deprivation and compulsory acquisition operates in favour of all persons, citizens as well as non-citizens, whereas the positive declaration of the right to property guarantees the right to citizens. But a wider operation of the guarantee under Article 31 does not alter the true character of the right it protects.Article 19 (5) and Article 31 (1) and (2), in our judgment, operate to delimit the exercise of the right to hold property46. Under the Constitution, protection against impairment of the guarantee of fundamental rights is determined by the nature of the right, the interest of the aggrieved party and the degree of harm resulting from the State action. Impairment of the right of the individual and not the object of the State in taking the impugned action, is the measure of protection. To concentrate merely on power of the State and the object of the State action in exercising that power is therefore to ignore the true intent of the Constitution. In this Court, there is, however, a body of authority that the nature and extent of the protection of the fundamental rights is measured not by the operation of the State action upon the rights of the individual, but by its object. Thereby the constitutional scheme which makes the guaranteed rights subject to the permissible restrictions within their allotted fields fundamental got blurred and gave impetus to a theory that certain Articles of the Constitution enact a code dealing exclusively with matters dealt with therein,and the protection which an aggrieved person may claim is circumscribed by the object of the State action46. Under the Constitution, protection against impairment of the guarantee of fundamental rights is determined by the nature of the right, the interest of the aggrieved party and the degree of harm resulting from the State action. Impairment of the right of the individual and not the object of the State in taking the impugned action, is the measure of protection. To concentrate merely on power of the State and the object of the State action in exercising that power is therefore to ignore the true intent of the Constitution. In this Court, there is, however, a body of authority that the nature and extent of the protection of the fundamental rights is measured not by the operation of the State action upon the rights of the individual, but by its object. Thereby the constitutional scheme which makes the guaranteed rights subject to the permissible restrictions within their allotted fields fundamental got blurred and gave impetus to a theory that certain Articles of the Constitution enact a code dealing exclusively with matters dealt with therein,and the protection which an aggrieved person may claim is circumscribed by the object of the State action46-A.Protection of the right to property or personal freedom is most needed when there is an actual threat. To argue that State action which deprives a person permanently or temporarily of his right to property or personal freedom, operates to extinguish the right or the remedy is to reduce the guarantee to an empty platitude. Again to hold that the extent of, and the circumstances in which, the guarantee of protection is available depends upon the object of the State action, is to seriously erode its effectiveness. Examining the problem not merely in semantics but in the broader and more appropriate context of the constitutional scheme which aims at affording the individual the fullest protection of his basic rights and on that foundation to erect a structure of a truly democratic polity,the conclusion, in our judgment, is inevitable that the validity of the state action must be adjudged in the light of its operation upon the rights of the individual and groups of individuals in all their dimensions56. We have carefully considered the weighty pronouncements of the eminent Judge who gave shape to the concept that the extent of protection of important guarantees, such as the liberty of person, and right to property, depends upon the form and object of the State action, and not upon its direct operation upon the individuals freedom.But it is not the object of the authority making the law impairing the right of a citizen, nor the form of action taken that determines the protection he can claim: it is the effect of the law and of the action upon the right which attract the jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief. It this be the true view and we think it is, in determining the impact of State action upon constitutional guarantees which are fundamental, it follows that the extent of protection against impairment of a fundamental right is determined not by the object of Legislature nor by the form of the action, but by its direct operation upon the individuals rights57. We are of the view that the theory that the object and form of the State action determine the extent of protection which the aggrieved party may claim is not consistent with the constitutional scheme. Each freedom has different dimensions. Article 19 (1) (f) enunciates the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property: Clause (5) of Article 19 authorizes imposition of restrictions upon the right. Article 31 assures the right to property and grants protection against the exercise of the authority of the State. Clause (5) of Article 19 and Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 31 prescribe restrictions upon State action, subject to which the right to property may be exercised.Article 19 (5) is a broad generalization dealing with the nature of limitations which may be placed by law on the right to property. The guarantees under Article 31 (1) and (2) arise out of the limitations imposed on the authority of the State by law to take over the individuals property.The true character of the limitations under the two provisions is not different. Clause (5) of Article 19 and columns (1) and (2) of Article 31 are parts of a single pattern. Article 19 (1) (f) enunciates the basic right to property of the citizens and Article 19 (5) and Clauses (1) (2) Article 31 deal with limitations which may be placed by law subject to which the rights may be exercised58-60. Limitations prescribed for ensuring due exercise of the authority of the State to deprive a person of his property and of the power to compulsorily acquire his property are, therefore, specific classes of limitations on the rights to property falling within Article 19 (1) (f). Property may be compulsorily acquired only for a public purpose. Where the law provides for compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose it may be presumed that the acquisition or the law relating thereto imposes a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. If there is no public purpose to sustain compulsory acquisition, the law violates Article 31 (2). If the acquisition is for a public purpose, substantive reasonableness of the restriction which includes deprivation may, unless otherwise established, be presumed, but enquiry into reasonableness of the procedural provisions will not be excluded. For instance if a tribunal is authorised by an Act to determine compensation for property compulsorily acquired, without hearing the owner of the property, the Act would be liable to be struck down under Article 19 (1) (f)61. In dealing with the argument that Article 31 (2) is a complete code relating to infringement of the right to property by compulsory acquisition, and the validity of the law is not liable to be tested in the light of the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed thereby it is necessary to bear in mind the enunciation of the guarantee of fundamental rights which has taken different forms. In some cases it is an express declaration of a guaranteed right: Articles 29 (1), 30 (1), 26, 25 and 32; in others to ensure protection of individual rights they take specific forms of restrictions on State action -legislative or executive-Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 (1), 27 and 28; in some others, it takes the form of a positive declaration and simultaneously enunciates the restriction thereon: Articles 19 (1) and 19 (2) to (6); in some cases, it arises as an implication from the delimitation of the authority of the State, e. g., Articles 31 (1) and 31 (2); in still others, it takes the form of a general prohibition against the State as well as others: Articles 17, 23 and 24. The enunciation of right either express or by implication does not follow a uniform pattern. But one thread runs through them: they seek to protect the rights of the individual or groups of individuals against infringement of those rights within specific limits. Part III of the Constitution weaves a pattern of guarantees on the texture of basic human rights. The guarantees delimit the protection of those rights in their allotted fields; they do not attempt to enunciate distinct rights62. We are therefore unable to hold that the challenge to the validity of the provision for acquisition is liable to be tested only on the ground of non-compliance with Article 31 (2). Article 31 (2) requires that property must be acquired for a public purpose and that it must be acquired under a law with characteristics set out in that Article. Formal compliance with the conditions under Art. 31 (2) is not sufficient to negative the protection of the guarantee of the right to property. Acquisition must be under the authority of a law and the expression "law" means a law which is within the competence of the Legislature and does not impair the guarantee of the rights in Part III.We are unable, therefore, to agree that Article 19 (1) (f) and 31 (2) are mutually exclusive62. We are therefore unable to hold that the challenge to the validity of the provision for acquisition is liable to be tested only on the ground of non-compliance with Article 31 (2). Article 31 (2) requires that property must be acquired for a public purpose and that it must be acquired under a law with characteristics set out in that Article. Formal compliance with the conditions under Art. 31 (2) is not sufficient to negative the protection of the guarantee of the right to property. Acquisition must be under the authority of a law and the expression "law" means a law which is within the competence of the Legislature and does not impair the guarantee of the rights in Part III.We are unable, therefore, to agree that Article 19 (1) (f) and 31 (2) are mutually exclusive63. The area of protection afforded against State action by the freedom under Article 19 (1) (f) and by the exercise of the power of the State to acquire property of the individual without his consent must still be reconciled. If property is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, and the law satisfies the requirements of Articles 31 (2) and 31 (2A), the Court may readily presume that by the acquisition a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to hold property is imposed in the interests of the general public.But that is not because the claim to plead infringement of the fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (f) does not avail the owner; it is because the acquisition imposes a permissible restriction on the right of the owner of the property compulsorily acquired64. We have found it necessary to examine the rationale of the two lines of authority and determine whether there is anything in the Constitution which justifies this apparently inconsistent development of the law. In our judgment, the assumption in A. K. Gopalans case 1950 SCR 88   = (AIR 1950 SC 27  ) that certain articles in the Constitution exclusively deal with specific matters and determining whether there is infringement of the individuals guaranteed rights, the object and the form of the State action alone need be considered, and effect of the laws on fundamental rights of the individuals in general will be ignored cannot be accepted as correct.We hold that the validity of "law" which authorises deprivation of property and "a law" which authorises compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose must be adjudged by the application of the same test. A citizen may claim in an appropriate case that the law authorising compulsory acquisition of property imposes fetters upon his right to hold property which are not reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. It is immaterial that the scope for such challenge may be attenuated because of the nature of the law of acquisition which providing as it does for expropriation of property of the individual for public purpose may be presumed to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general publicBy Section 4 the entire undertaking of each named bank vests in the Union, and the Bank is prohibited from engaging in the business of banking in India and even in a foreign country, except where by the laws of a foreign country banking business owned or controlled by Government cannot be carried on, the named bank will be entitled to continue the business in that country. The business which the named banks carried on was-(1) the business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and business incidental thereto; and (2) other business which by virtue of Section 6 (1) they were not prohibited from carrying on, though not part of or incidental to the business of banking. It may be recalled that by Act 22 of 1969 the named banks cannot engage in business of banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but may engage in other forms of business. By the Act, however, the entire undertaking of each named bank is vested in the new corporation set up with a name identical with the name of that Bank, and authorised to carry on banking business previously carried on by the named bank, and its managerial and other staff is transferred to the corresponding new bank.The newly constituted corresponding bank is entitled to engage in business described in Section 6 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, and for that purpose to utilize the assets, goodwill and business connections of the existing bank71. The law which prohibits after July 19, 1969, the named banks from carrying on banking business, being a necessary incident of the right assumed by the Union, is not liable to be challenged because of Article 19 (6) (ii) in so far as it affects the right to carry on business71-A. There is no satisfactory proof in support of the plea that the enactment of Act 22 of 1969 was not in the larger interest of the nation, but to serve political ends, i.e. not with the object to ensure better banking facilities, or to make them available to a wider public, but only to take control over the deposits of the public with the major banks, and to use them as a political lever against industrialists who had built up industries by decades of industrial planing and careful management. It is true that social control legislation enacted by the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act 58 of 1968 was in operation and the named banks were subject to rigorous control which the Reserve Bank was competent to exercise and did in fact exercise. Granting that the objectives laid down by the Reserve Bank being carried out, it cannot be said that the Act was enacted in abuse of legislative power.Our attention was invited to a mass of evidence from the speeches of the Deputy Prime Minister, and of the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, and also extracts from the Reserve Bank Bulletins issued from time to time and other statistical information collected from official sources in support of the thesis of the petitioner that the performance of the named banks exceeded the targets laid down by the Reserve Bank on its directives; that the named banks had effectively complied with the requirements of the law; that they had served the diverse interests including small-scale sector, and had been instrumental in bringing about an increasing tempo of industrial and commercial activity; that they had discouraged speculative holding of commodities; and had followed essential priorities in the economic development of the nation coupled with a vigorous programme of branch development in the rural sector, brining about a considerable expansion in deposits, and large advances to the small-scale business and industry72. This Court is not the forum in which these conflicting claims may be debated.Whether there is a genuine need for banking facility in the rural areas, whether certain classes of the community are deprived of the benefit of the resources of the banking industry, whether administration by the Government of the commercial banking sector will not prove beneficial to the community and will lead to rigidity in the administration whether the Government administration will eschew the profit-motive,and even if it be eschewed, there will accrue substantial benefits to the public, whether an undue accent on banking as a means of social regeneration, especially in the backward areas, is a doctrinaire approach to a rational order of priorities for attaining the national objectives enshrined in our Constitution, and whether the policy followed by the Government in office or the policy propounded by its opponents may reasonably attain the national objectives are matters which have little relevance in determining the legality of the measure.It is again not for this Court to consider the relative merits of the different political theories or economic policies. The Parliament has under Entry 45 List I the power to legislate in respect of banking and other commercial activities of the named banks necessarily incidental thereto: it has the power to legislate for acquiring the undertaking of the named banks under Entry 42 List III. Whether by the exercise of the power vested in the Reserve Bank under the pre-existing laws results could be achieved which it is the object of the Act to achieve, is in our judgment, not relevant in considering whether the Act amounts to abuse of legislative power. This Court has the power to strike down a law on the ground of want of authority, but the Court will not sit in appeal over the policy of the Parliament in enacting a law. The Court cannot find fault with the Act merely on the ground that it is inadvisable to take over the undertaking of banks which, it is said by the petitioner, by thrift and efficient management had set up an impressive and efficient business organization serving large sectors of industry73. By Section 15 (2) (e) of the Act the Banks are entitled to engage in business other than banking. But by the provisions of the Act they are rendered practically incapable of engaging in any business. By the provisions of the Act, a named bank cannot even use its name, and the compensation which is to be given will, in the absence of agreement, be determined by the Tribunal, and paid in securities which will mature not before ten years. A named bank may, if it agrees to distribute among the shareholders the compensation which it may receive, be paid in securities an amount equal to half the paid-up share capital, but obviously the fund will not be available to the Bank. It is true that under Section 15 (3) of the Act the Central Government may authorise the corresponding new banks to make advances to the named banks for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 15 (2). But that is a matter which rests only upon the will of the Central Government and no right can be founded upon it74. Where restrictions imposed upon the carrying on of a business are so stringent that the business cannot in practice be carried on, the Court will regard the imposition of the restrictions as unreasonable76.If compensation paid is in such a form that it is not immediately available for restarting any business, declaration of the right to carry on business other than banking becomes an empty formality, when the entire undertaking of the named banks is transferred to and vests in the new banks together with the premises and the names of the banks are deprived of the services of its administrative and other staff77.The restriction imposed upon the right of the named banks to carry on "non-banking" business is, in our judgment, plainly unreasonable. No attempt is made to support the Act which while theoretically declaring the right of the named banks to carry on "non-banking" business makes it impossible in a commercial sense for the banks to carry on any business79. The Courts recognize in the Legislature some degree of elasticity in the matter of making a classification between persons, objects and transactions.Provided the classification is based on some intelligible ground, the Courts will not strike down that classification, because in the view of the Court it should have proceeded on some other ground or should have included the class selected for special treatment some other persons, objects or transactions which are not included by the Legislature. The Legislature is free to recognize the degree of harm and to restrict the operation of a law only to those cases where the need is the clearest. The Legislature need not extend the regulation of a law to all cases it may possibly reach, and may make a classification founded on practical grounds of convenience. Classification to be valid must, however, disclose a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law which makes the classification. Validity of a classification will be upheld only if that test is independently satisfied. The Court in examining the validity of a statute challenged as infringing the equality clause makes an assumption that there is a reasonable classification and that the classification has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute80. By the definition of existing bank in Section 2 (d) of the Act, fourteen named banks in the First Schedule are, out of many commercial banks engaged in the business of banking, selected for special treatment, in that the undertaking of the named banks is taken over, they are prevented from carrying on in India and abroad banking business and the Act operates in practice to prevent those banks engaging in business other than bankingMr. Palkhivala has handed in a statement setting out the percentage return of dividend on market rates in 1968. The rate works out at more than 10 per cent in the case of the shares of Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India, Dena Bank, Indian Bank, United Bank and United Commercial Bank; and at more than 9 per cent in the case of shares of Bank of India, Bank of Maharashtra, Canara Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and United Bank of India.In the case of Allahabad Bank it worked out at 5 per cent, and in the case of shares of Punjab National Bank and Syndicate Bank the rates are not available. This statement is not challenged. Since the taking over of the undertaking, there has resulted a steep fall in the ruling market quotations of the shares of a majority of the named banks.The market quotations have slumped to less than 50 per cent in the case of Bank of India, Central Bank, Bank of Baroda and even at the quoted rates probably there are no transactions. Dividend may no longer be distributed, for the banks have no liquid assets and they are not engaged in any commercial activity. It may take many years before the compensation payable to the banks may even be finalized, and be available to the named banks for utilising it in any commercial venture open to the banks under the Act. Under the scheme of determination of compensation, the total amount payable to the banks will be a fraction of the value of their net assets, and that compensation will not be available to the Banks immediately82. The ground for selection of the 14 banks is that those banks held deposits, as shown in the return as on the last Friday of June 1969, furnished to the Reserve Bank under Section 27 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, of not less than rupees fifty crores84. In support of the plea that there is a reasonable relation between the differentia - ground for making the distinction between the named banks and the other banks - India and foreign - and the object of the Act it is urged that the policy of the Union is to control the concentration of private economic resources to ensure achievement of the directive principles of State policy, and for that purpose, selection has been made "with an eye, inter alia, to the magnitude and concentration of the economic resources of such enterprises for inclusion in such law as would be essential or substantially conducive to the achievement of the national objectives and policy." It is apparently claimed that the object of the Government - not of the statute - is to acquire ultimately all banking institutions, but the 14 named banks are selected for acquisition because they have "larger business and wider coverage" in comparison with other banks not selected, and had also larger organization, better managerial resources and employees better trained and equipped. These are primarily grounds for classification and not for explaining the relation between the classification and the object of the Act. But in the absence of any reliable data, we do not think it necessary to express an opinion on the question whether selection of the undertaking of some out of many banking institutions, for compulsory acquisition, is liable to be struck down as hostile discrimination, on the ground that there is no reasonable relation between the differentia and the object of the Act which cannot be substantially served even by the acquisition of the undertakings of all the banks out of which the selection is made85. It is claimed that the depositors with the named banks have also a grievance. Those depositors who had made long-term deposits, taking into account the confidence they had in the management of the banks and the service they rendered, are now called upon to trust the management of a statutory corporation not selected by them, without an opportunity of being placed in the same position in which they would have been if they were permitted to transfer their deposits elsewhere. The argument is based on several imponderables and does not require any detailed consideration86. But two other grounds in support of the plea of impairment of the guarantee of equality clause require to be noticed. The fourteen named banks are prohibited from carrying on banking business - a disability for which there is no rational explanation. Banks other than the named banks may carry on banking business in India and abroad: new banks may be floated for carrying on banking business, but the named banks are prohibited from carrying on banking business. Each named bank had, even as claimed on behalf of the Union, by its superior management established an extensive business organization, and each bank had deposits exceeding Rs. 50 crores. The undertakings of the banks are taken over and they are prohibited from doing banking business. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union no serious attempt is made to explain why the named banks should be specially selected for being subjected to this disability87. The petitioner also contended that the classification is made on a wholly irrational ground, viz., penalizing efficiency and good management, for the major fourteen banks had made a sustained effort and had exceeded the Reserve Bank target and had fully complied with the directives under the social control legislation. This, it is said, is a reversal of the policy underlying Section 36 AE of the Banking Regulation Act under which inefficient and recalcitrant banks are contemplated to be taken over by the Government. We need express no opinion on this part of the argument. But the petitioner is on firm ground in contending that when after acquiring the assets, undertaking, organization, goodwill and the names of the named banks they are prohibited from carrying on banking business, whereas other banks Indian as well as foreign - are permitted to carry on banking business, a flagrantly hostile discrimination is practised. Section 15 (2) of the Act which by the clearest implication prohibits the named banks from carrying on banking business is, therefore, liable to be struck down. It is immaterial whether the entire sub-section (2) is struck down or as suggested by the Attorney-General that only the words "other than the business of banking" in Section 15 (2) (e) be struck down. Again, in considering the validity of Section 15 (2) (e) in its relation to the guarantee of freedom to carry on business other than banking, we have already pointed out that the named banks are also, (though theoretically competent) in substance prohibited from carrying on non-banking business. For reasons set out by us for holding that the restriction is unreasonable, it must also be held that the guarantee of equality is impaired by preventing the named banks carrying on the non-banking business89. In the case before us we need not express any opinion on the question whether a composite undertaking of two or more distinct lines of business may be acquired where there is a public purpose for acquisition of the assets of one or more lines of business, but not in respect of all the lines of business. As we have already observed, there is no evidence that the named banks carried on non-banking business, distinct from banking business, and in respect of such non-banking business the banks owned distinct assets apart from the assets of the banking business90. The law providing for acquisition must again either fix the amount of compensation or specify the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.The owner whose property is compulsorily acquired is guaranteed the right to receive compensation and the amount of compensation must either be fixed by the law or be determined according to the principles and in the manner specified by the law. The law which does not ensure the guarantee will, except where the grievance only is that the compensation provided by the law is inadequate, be declared void100. Both the lines of thought which converge in the ultimate result, support the view that the principle specified by the law for determination of compensation is beyond the pale of challenge, if it is relevant to the determination of compensation and is a recognised principle applicable in the determination of compensation for property compulsorily acquired and the principle is appropriate in determining the value of the class of property sought to be acquired. On the application of the view expressed in P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR 614   = (AIR 1965 SC 1017  ) or in Shantilal Mangaldass case, AIR 1969 SC 634  , the Act, in our judgment, is liable to be struck down as it fails to provide to the expropriated banks compensation determined according to relevant principles. Section 4 of the Act transfers the undertaking of every named bank to and vests it in the corresponding new bank. Section 6(1) provides for payment of compensation for acquisition of the undertaking, and the compensation is to be determined in accordance with the principles specified in the Second Schedule. Section 6 (2) then provides that though separate valuations are made in respect of the several matters specified in Sch. II of the Act, the amount of compensation shall be deemed to be a single compensation. Compensation being the equivalent in terms of money of the property compulsorily acquired, the principle for determination of compensation is intended to award to the expropriated owner the value of the property acquired.The science of valuation of property recognizes several principles or methods for determining the value to be paid as compensation to the owner for loss of his property; there are different methods applicable to different classes of property in the determination of the value to be paid as recompense for loss of his property. A method appropriate to the determination of value of one class of property may be wholly inappropriate in determining the value of another class of property.If an appropriate method or principle for determination of compensation is applied, the fact that by the application of another principle which is also appropriate, a different value is reached, the Court will not be justified in entertaining the contention that out of the two appropriate methods, one more generous to the owner should have been applied by the Legislature101.We are unable to hold that a principle specified by the Parliament for determining compensation of the property to be acquired is conclusive. If that view be accepted, the Parliament will be invested with a charter of arbitrariness and by abuse of legislative process, the constitutional guarantee of the right to compensation may be severely impaired. The principle specified must be appropriate to the determination of compensation for the particular class of property sought to be acquired. If several principles are appropriate and one is selected for determination of the value of the property to be acquired, selection of that principle to the exclusion of other principles is not open to challenge, for the selection must be left to the wisdom of the Parliament102. The broad object underlying the principle of valuation is to award to the owner the equivalent of his property with its existing advantages and its potentialities. Where there is an established market for the property acquired the problem of valuation presents little difficulty. Where there is no established market for the property, the object of the principle of valuation must be to pay to the owner for what he has lost, including the benefit of advantages present as well as future, without taking into account the urgency of acquisition, the disinclination of the owner to part with the property, and the benefit which the acquirer is likely to obtain by the acquisition.Under the Land Acquisition Acts compensation paid is the value to the owner together with all its potentialities and its special adaptability if the land is peculiarly suitable for a particular use, if it gives an enhanced value at the date of acquisition103.The important methods of determination of compensation are - (i) market value determined from sales of comparable properties, proximate in time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing the same or similar advantages and subject to the same or similar disadvantages.Market value is the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase; (ii) capitalization of the net annual profit out of the property at a rate equal in normal cases to the return from giltedged securities. Ordinarily value of the property may be determined by capitalizing the net annual value obtainable in the market at the date of the notice of acquisition, (iii) where the property is a house, expenditure likely to be incurred for constructing a similar house, and reduced by the depreciation for the number of years since it was constructed; (iv) principle of reinstatement, where it is satisfactorily established that reinstatement in some other place is bona fide intended, there being no general market for the property for the purpose for which it is devoted (the purpose being a public purpose) and would have continued to be devoted, but for compulsory acquisition. Here compensation will be assessed on the basis of reasonable cost of reinstatement; (v) when the property has outgrown its utility and it is reasonably incapable of economic use, it may be valued as land plus the break-up value of the structure. But the fact that the acquirer does not intend to use the property for which it is used at the time of acquisition and desires to demolish it or use it for other purpose is irrelevant; and (vi) the property to be acquired has ordinarily to be valued as a unit. Normally an aggregate of the value of different components will not be the value of the unit104. These are, however, not the only methods. The method of determining the value of property by the application of an appropriate multiplier to the net annual income or profit is a satisfactory method of valuation of lands with buildings, only if the land is fully developed, i.e., it has been put to full use legally permissible and economically justifiable, and the income out of the property is the normal commercial and not a controlled return or a return depreciated on account of special circumstances. If the property is not fully developed, or the return is not commercial the method may yield a misleading result106. Compensation to be determined under the Act is for acquisition of the undertaking, but the Act instead of providing for valuing the entire undertaking as a unit provides for determining the value of some only of the components, which constitute the undertaking, and reduced by the liabilities. It also provides different methods of determining compensation in respect of each such component. This method for determination of compensation is prima facie not a method relevant to the determination of compensation for acquisition of the undertaking. Aggregate of the value of components is not necessarily the value of the entirety of a unit of property acquired, especially when the property is a going concern, with an organized business. On that ground alone, acquisition of the undertaking is liable to be declared invalid, for it impairs the constitutional guarantee for payment of compensation for acquisition of property by law. Even if it be assumed that the aggregate value of the different components will be equal to the value of the undertaking of the named bank as a going concern the principles specified, in our judgment, do not give a true recompense to the banks for the loss of the undertaking107. The undertaking of a banking company taken over as a going concern would ordinarily include the goodwill and the value of the unexpired period of long-term leases in the prevailing conditions in urban areas. But good-will of the banks is not one of the items in the assets in the Schedule, and in Cl. (f) though provision is made for including a part of the premium paid in respect of leasehold properties proportionate to the unexpired period, no value of the leasehold interest for the unexpired period is given109. Business of banking thrives on its reputation for probity of its dealings, efficiency of the service it provides, courtesy and promptness of the staff, and above all the confidence it inspires among the customers for the safety of the funds entrusted.The Reserve Bank, it is true, exercises stringent control over the transactions which banks carry on in India. Existence of these powers and exercise thereof may and do ensure to a certain extent the safety of the founds entrusted to the Banks,But the business which a bank attracts still depends upon the confidence which the depositor reposes in the management.A bank is not like a grocers shop: a customer does not extend his patronage to a bank merely because it has a branch easily accessible to him. Outside the public sector, there are 50 Indian scheduled banks, 13 foreign banks, besides 16 non-scheduled banks. The deposits in the banks not taken over under the Act range between Rs. 400 crores and a few lakhs of rupees. Deposits attracted by the major private commercial banks are attributable largely to the personal goodwill of the management. The regulatory provisions of the Banking Companies Act and the control which the Reserve Bank exercises over the banks may to a certain extent reduce the chance of the resources of the bank being misused, but a banking company for its business still largely depends upon the reputation of its management. We are unable to agree with the contention raised in the Unions affidavit that a banking establishment has no goodwill, nor are we able to accept the plea raised by the Attorney General that the value of the goodwill of bank is insignificant and it may be ignored in valuing the undertaking as a going concern110. Under clause (f) of Schedule II provision is made for valuing a proportionate part of the premium paid in respect of all leasehold properties to the unexpired duration of the leases, but there is no provision made for payment of compensation for the unexpired period of the leases.Having regard to the present day conditions it is clear that with rent control on leases operating in various States the unexpired period of leases has also a substantial value111.The value determined by excluding important components of the undertaking, such as the goodwill and value of the unexpired period of leases, will not, in our judgment, be compensation for the undertakingUnder clause (a) of Part I-Assets - the amount of cash in hand and with the Reserve Bank and the State Bank of India (including foreign currency notes which shall be converted at the market rate of exchange) are liable to be included. Cash in hand is not an item which is capable of being compulsorily acquired, not because it is not property,but because taking over the cash and providing for acquisition thereof, compensation payable at some future date amounts to levying a "forced loan" in the guise of acquisition.This Court in State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga, 1952 SCR 889   = (AIR 1952 SC 252  ) held that cash and choses in action are not capable of compulsory acquisition. That view was repeated by this Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 1122  = (AIR 1958 SC 328  ) and Ranojirao Shindes case, (1968) 3 SCR 489  = (AIR 1968 SC 1053  ).We do not propose to express our opinion on the question whether in adopting the method of determination of compensation, by aggregating the value of assets which constitute the undertaking, the rule that cash and choses in action are incapable of compulsory acquisition may be applied113. Under Item (e) the value of any land or buildings is one of the assets. The first Explanation provides that for the purpose of this clause (clause (e) ) "value" shall be deemed to be the market value of the land or buildings, but where such market value exceeds the "ascertained value" determined in the manner specified in Explanation 2, the value shall be deemed to mean such "ascertained value". The value of the land and buildings is therefore the market value or the "ascertained value" whichever is less. Under Explanation 2, clause (1) "ascertained value" in respect of buildings which are wholly occupied on the date of the commencement of the Act is twelve times the amount of the annual rent or the rent for which the building may reasonably be expected to be let from year to year reduced by certain specific items.This provision, in our judgment, does not lay down a relevant principle of valuation of buildings. In the first place, making a provision for payment of capitalised annual rental at twelve times the amount of rent cannot reasonably be regarded as payment of compensation having regard to the conditions prevailing in the money market. Capitalization of annual rental which is generally based on controlled rent under some State Acts at rates pegged down to the rates prevailing in 1940 and on the footing that investment in building yields 8 1/3 per cent. return furnishes a wholly misleading result which cannot be called compensation.Value of immovable property has spiralled during the last few years and the rental which is mostly controlled does not bear any reasonable relation to the economic return from property. If the building is partly occupied by the Bank itself and partly by a tenant, the ascertained value will be twelve times the annual rental received, and the rent for which the remaining part occupied by the Bank may reasonably be expected to be let out. By the Act the corresponding new banks take over vacant possession of the lands and buildings belonging to the named banks. There is in the present conditions considerable value attached to vacant business premises in urban areas. True compensation for vacant premises can be ascertained by finding out the market value of comparable premises at or about the time of the vesting of the undertaking and not by capitalising the rental - actual or estimated. Vacant premises have a considerably larger value than business premises which are occupied by tenants. The Act instead of taking into account the value of the premises as vacant premises adopted a method which cannot be regarded as relevant. Prima facie, this would not give any reliable basis for determining the compensation for the land and buildings114. Again in determining the compensation under clause (e), the annual rent is reduced by several outgoings and the balance is capitalized. The first item of deduction is one-sixth of the amount thereof on account of maintenance and repairs. Whether the building is old or new, whether it requires or does not requires maintenance or repairs 16 2/3 per cent. of the total amount of rent is liable to be deducted towards maintenance and repairs. The vice of items (v) and (vi) of clause (1) of Explanation 2 is that they provide for deduction of a capital charge out of the annual rental which according to no rational system of valuing property by capitalization of the rental method is admissible.Under item (v) where the building is subject to a mortgage or other capital charge, the amount of interest on such mortgage or charge, and under item (vi) where the building has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital are liable to be deducted from the annual rental for determining the ascertained value. These encumbrances are also liable to be deducted under the head "liabilities". A simple illustration may suffice to pinpoint the inequity of the method. In respect of a building owned by a bank of the value of Rs. 10 lakhs and mortgaged for say Rs. 7,50,000 interest at the rate of 8 per cent (which may be regarded as the current commercial rate) would amount to Rs. 60,000.The estimated annual rental which would ordinarily not exceed Rs. 60,000 has under clause (e) to be reduced in the first instance by other outgoing. The assets would show a minus figure as value of the building, and on the liabilities side the entire amount of mortgage liability would be debited. The method provided by the Act permits the annual interest on the amount of the encumbrance to be deducted before capitalization, and the capitalized value is again reduced by the amount of the encumbrance. In effect, a single debt is, in determining the compensation debited twice, first in computing the value of assets, and again, in computing the liabilities115. We are unable to accept the argument raised by the Attorney-General that under the head "liabilities" in Part II only those mortgages or capital charges in respect of which the amount has fallen due are liable to be included on the liabilities side. Under the head "liabilities" the total amount of all outside liabilities existing at the commencement of the Act, and all contingent liabilities which the corresponding new bank may reasonably be expected to be required to meet out of its own resources on or after the date of commencement of the Act will have to be included. When even contingent liabilities are included in the total amount of all outside liabilities, a mortgage debt or capital charge must be taken into account in determining the liabilities by which the aggregate of the value of the assets is to be reduced even if the period of the mortgage or capital charge has not expired. The liability under a mortgage or capital charge exists whether the period stipulated under the deed creating the encumbrance has expired of not117. Under Clause (3) of Explanation 2, where there is open land which has no building erected thereon, or which is not appurtenant to any building, the value is to be determined "with reference to the prices at which sales or purchases of similar or comparable lands have been made during the period of three years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of" the Act. Whereas the value of the open land is to be the market value, the value of the land with building to be taken into account is the value determined by the method of capitalization of annual rent or market value whichever is less. The Explanation does not take into account whether the construction on the land fully develops the land, and the rental is economic118. We are, therefore, unable to hold that item (e) specifies a relevant principle for determination of compensation for lands and buildings.It is not disputed that the major Banks occupy their own buildings in important towns, and investments in buildings constitute a part of the assets of the Banks which cannot be treated as negligible. By providing a method of valuation of buildings which is not relevant the amount determined cannot be regarded as compensation120. Mr. Palkhivala urged that certain assets which do not appear in the books of account still have substantial value and they are omitted from consideration in computing the aggregate of the value of assets.Counsel said that every bank is permitted to have secret reserve and those secret reserves may not appear in the books of account of the banks. We are unable to accept that contention. A banking company is entitled to withhold from the balance-sheet its secret reserve, but there must be some account in respect of these secret reserves. The expression "books of the Bank" may not be equated with balance-sheets or the books of account only122. The Attorney-General contended that even if the goodwill of a banking company is of substantial value, and inclusion of the goodwill is not provided for, or the value of buildings and lands is not the market value or that there is a departure from recognized principles for determination of compensation, the deficiencies in the Act result merely in inadequate compensation within the meaning of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution and the Act cannot on that account be challenged as invalid.We are unable to agree with that contention. The constitution guarantees a right to compensation-an equivalent in money of the property compulsorily acquired. That is the basic guarantee. The law must therefore provide compensation, and for determining compensation relevant principles must be specified; if the principles are not relevant the ultimate value determined is not compensation123. The Attorney-General also contended that if in consequence of the adoption of the method of valuation, an amount determined as compensation is not illusory, the Courts have no jurisdiction to question the validity of the law, unless the law is expropriatory, for, in the ultimate analysis the grievance relates to the adequacy of compensation. He contended that the exclusion of one of the elements in fixing the compensation, or application of a principle which is not a recognized principle, results in inadequate price, and is not open to challenge, and relied in support upon the observations made in P. Vajravelu Mudaliars case, (1965) 1 SCR = (AIR 1965 SC 1017  ) (at p. 631 of SCR) = (at p. 1026 of AIR) which we have already quoted in another context in relation to the challenge to the validity of the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961, which excluded in determining compensation the potential value of the land. The Court held that exclusion of potential value amounted to giving inadequate compensation and was not a fraud on power. The principle of that case has no application when valuation of an undertaking is sought to be made by breaking it up into several heads of assets and important heads are excluded and others valued by the application of irrelevant principles, or principles of which the only claim for acceptance is their novelty.The Constitution guarantees that the expropriated owner must be given the value of his property, i. e., what may be regarded reasonably as compensation for loss of the property and that such compensation should not be illusory and not reached by the application of irrelevant principles. In our view, determination of compensation to be paid for the acquisition of an undertaking as a unit after awarding compensation for some items which go to make up the undertaking and omitting important items amounts to adopting an irrelevant principle in the determination of the value of the undertaking, and does not furnish compensation to the expropriated owner124. The Attorney-General contended that the total value of the undertaking of the named banks even calculated according to the method provided in Schedule II exceeded the total market value of the shares, and on that account there is no ground for holding that the law providing for compensation denies to the share-holders the guarantee of the right to compensation under Article 31 (2). But there is no evidence on this part of the case126.A scheme for payment of compensation may take many forms. If the present value of what is given reasonably approximates to what is determined as compensation according to the principles provided by the statute, no fault may be found. But if the law seeks to convert the compensation determined into a forced loan, or to give compensation in the form of a bond of which the market value at the date of expropriation does not approximate the amount determined as compensation, the Court must consider whether what is given is in truth compensation which is inadequate, or that it is not compensation at all. Since we are of the view that the scheme in Schedule II of the Act suffers from the vice that it does not award compensation according to any recognized principles, we need not dilate upon this matter further. We need only observe that by giving to the expropriated owner compensation in bonds of the face-value of the amount determined maturing after many years and carrying a certain rate of interest, the constitutional guarantee is not necessarily complied with. If the market value of the bond is not approximately equal to the face-value, the expropriated owner may raise a grievance that the guarantee under Article 31 (2) is impaired127. We are of the view that by the method adopted for valuation of the undertaking, important items of assets have been excluded, and principles some of which are irrelevant and some not recognised are adopted. What is determined by the adoption of the method adopted in Schedule II does not award to the named banks compensation for loss of their undertaking.The ultimate result substantially impairs the guarantee of compensation, and on that account the Act is liable to be struck down128. In the view we have taken the provisions relating to determination and payment of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the undertaking of the named banks impair the guarantee under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution, we do not deem it necessary to decide whether Act 22 of 1969 violates the guarantee of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse in respect of the (1) agency business; (2) business of guarantee and indemnity carried on by the named banks129. The argument raised by Mr. Palkhivala that, even if the Act is within the competence of the Parliament and does not impair the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and (g), and 31(2) in their prospective operation, Section 1(2) and S. 27(2), (3) and (4) which give retrospective operation as from July 19, 1969, are invalid, need not also be considered130. Nor does the argument about the validity of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 11 and Section 26 of the Act survive for consideration131. Accordingly we hold that(a) the Act is within the legislative competence of the Parliament; but(b) it makes hostile discrimination against the named banks in that it prohibits the named banks from carrying on banking business, whereas other Banks -Indian and Foreign-are permitted to carry on banking business, and even new Banks may be formed which may engage in banking business;(c) it in reality restricts the named banks from carrying on business other than banking as defined in Section 5 (b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; and(d) that the Act violates the guarantee of compensation under Article 31 (2) in that it provides for giving certain amounts determined according to principles which are not relevant in the determination of compensation of the undertaking of the named banks and by the method prescribed the amounts so declared cannot be regarded as compensation132.Section 4 of the Act is a kingpin in the mechanism of the Act. Section 4, 5 and 6 read with Schedule II provide for the statutory transfer and vesting of the undertaking of the named banks in the corresponding new banks and prescribe the method of determining compensation for expropriation of the undertaking. Those provisions are, in our judgment, void as they impair the fundamental guarantee under Article 31 (2). Sections 4, 5 and 6 and Schedule II are not severable from the rest of the Act. The Act must, in its entirety, be declared void