Constitutional Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to every citizen the right "to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade and business."
The right secured by Article 19(1)(g) is subjected to any law made or to be made by the state for the following purpose -
1)Any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the General public .
2) Any law prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business.
3) Any law authorizing the carrying on by the state, or by 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.
The right to carry on a business includes the right not to start any business or if he chooses, he has the right to close it down at any time he likes. Thus the state cannot compel a citizen to carry on business against his will. A citizen cannot insist upon the government or any other individual for doing business with him. However like rights, the right to close down a business is not an absolute right and can be restricted, regulated, controlled by the state in the interests of general public. Thus the right to close down a business cannot be equated or placed at per as high as the right not to start and carry on business. If a person does not start a business at all, he cannot be compelled to start it. But if he was started and has been carrying on business, his right to close it down may be restricted by imposing reasonable restrictions.Betting and Gambling have been held to be not trade and so fall outside the preview of Article 19(1)(g) .
1) Nashirwar v. State of Madhya pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 360,
The Supreme Court held that there was no fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor because the reason of public morality, pubic interest and harmful dangerous character of liquor.
2) State of. Andhra pradesh v. McDowell, AIR 1996 SC 1627.
In this case Court held that even if trade in intoxicating liquors fall within the scope of Article 19(1)(g) , the state could still impose severe restrictions, or even prohibition, on the trade in intoxicating liquors.
3) Mohd.Hanif Quareahi V. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC,731.
The Supreme Court Declared cow slaughter Act constitutional. Court ruled that the restriction was not reasonable, looking to the blame which needs to be struck between public interest, which requires preservation of useful animals , and permitting the different traders in beef, etc. To carry on their trade and profession.