Article 301

India's freedom movement and Constitution-makers wanted to avoid the fractured, barrier-ridden economy of the pre-independence era, where princely states and provinces often imposed tolls, duties, and restrictions on goods crossing their borders. Article 301 was designed to create a unified national economic space — a common market — so that India would function as one nation economically, not a patchwork of trade-restricted regions, while still allowing government regulation for genuine public needs.

The Supreme Court has shaped this Article through several landmark cases. In Atiabari Tea Co. v. State of Assam (1961), the Court held that taxes directly and immediately restricting the movement of goods violate Article 301. In Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) v. State of Rajasthan (1962), it introduced the idea that 'compensatory' taxes — those that merely pay for facilities like roads — do not violate this freedom. Later, in the nine-judge bench decision of Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2016), the Court revisited this area, discarding the compensatory tax theory and holding that only taxes which discriminate against goods from other states (in a way that harms the free flow of trade) are unconstitutional under Article 301, while non-discriminatory taxes are generally permissible.

• Myth: Article 301 means no tax or restriction on trade is ever allowed.
  Fact: Courts have clarified that reasonable, non-discriminatory taxes and regulations (such as those funding roads or ensuring safety) are allowed; only measures that unfairly restrict or discriminate against inter-state trade violate this Article.
• Myth: Article 301 gives an unconditional, standalone freedom.
  Fact: The Article itself says it is 'subject to the other provisions of this Part,' meaning Articles 302 to 305 can validly limit this freedom in specific circumstances, such as in the public interest or to protect a state's own trade under certain conditions.