Exception to the freedom of trade-intoxicants or drugs- the apex court in Harshanker Vs Deputy Excuse &Taxation Commissioner said that

trade is and include occupation of buying and selling, barter or such skilled work as of goldsmiths commission agent etc. The citizen cannot be prevented from carrying on any trade or profession, except on ground of unlawful character of the trade, or else, that it is extra commercium. He does not possess freedom to carry on trade, for instance, in intoxicants or drugs. There can be no trade in crime. It is as per the will of the person to do or to continue some business, but this right carry on any trade or profession also includes his right to discontinue the business, or close down the business, trade or profession as in Excel Wear Vs union of India (AIR 1925 SC25) Right Against Sexual Harassment of Working Women In Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court observed that sexual harassment of working women at working places would be violation of the victims , fundamental rights under art 19(1)(g). In this case a , social worker was brutally gang raped in a village of rajasthan. The court took a serious note of the matter and issued certain guidelines for the prevention of such incidents. No Right Against Competitions art 19(1)(g) does not guarantees protection fromcompetition in trade. Therefore, the loss of income on account of competition in trade doesnot infringe the right to trade under art 19(1)(g). In Shyam Bihari Tewari Vs State of U.P., the supreme court held that a cinema owner had no locus standi to challenge, the establishment and grant in aid, for new cinema hall. Right to impart education and establish educational institutions the Supreme court in unni Krishna vs state of A.P commonly known as capitation fee case observed that activity of establishing an educational institutional institution could neither a trade or business nor could it be a profession within the meaning of art 19(1)(g). The above decision of Supreme Court was overruled by T.M.A Pai Foundation Vs State of Karnataka where the court held that:- Education used to be charity or philanthropy in good old times. Gradually it became an 'occupation'. Some of the Judicial dicta go on to hold it as an 'industry'. Whether, to receive education, is a fundamental right or not has been debated for quite some time. But it is settled that establishing and administering of an educational institution for imparting knowledge to the students is an occupation, protected by Article 19(1)(g) and additionally by Article 26(a), if there is no element of profit generation. As of now, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professionals and a mission in life for some altruists. It is submitted that taking over the right to regulate admission and fee structure of unaided professional institutions is not a 'reasonable restriction' within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Restrictions on the right to carry on trade or business art 19(6) Reasonable restrictions in public interest. Restriction must not be unreasonable or excessive. Restriction may amount to total prohibition. State trading and state monopoly in a trade or business