सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 305

Saving of existing laws and laws providing for State monopolies

Why this exists

When the Constitution created a single free-trade zone across India (Articles 301-303), many laws already existed—like licensing rules, taxes, or trade restrictions—that could have been struck down as barriers to free trade. Article 305 was added to prevent sudden disruption by protecting these 'existing laws' unless the President chooses to lift that protection. The reference to Article 19(6)(ii) (added by the Fourth Amendment in 1955) also lets the State create or continue monopolies in certain businesses (like state-run transport or utilities) without being blocked by the free-trade guarantee in Article 301.

How courts read it

In cases such as Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. (1954) and later decisions, courts examined how far the State could nationalize or monopolize trade in the name of public interest, and how Article 305 interacts with Article 19(6)(ii) to shield such laws from Article 301 challenges. Courts have generally read Article 305 as a narrow saving clause, protecting existing laws and monopoly-related laws, while leaving other new restrictions on trade fully subject to Part XIII's free-trade guarantees.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Article 305 gives the President power to strike down any inconvenient law.
    Fact: It only allows the President to withdraw the protection given to existing laws under this Article — it doesn't create a general power to cancel laws.
  • Myth: State monopolies are always unconstitutional because they restrict free trade.
    Fact: Article 305, read with Article 19(6)(ii), specifically permits state monopolies in certain trades or businesses without violating Article 301.
Article 305 — Saving of existing laws and laws providing for State monopolies · Samvidhan