Centre for Business & Accounting Research

With the This push is driven by globalization, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), and the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) growing acceptance of international standards, Countries like the United States are facing mounting pressure to harmonize their accounting standards, such as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This pressure stems from the accelerating pace of globalization, the far-reaching implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), and the growing openness of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) toward international accounting practices.

The potential convergence of GAAP and IFRS carries profound consequences for a broad range of stakeholders. Corporate management, investors, stock markets, and accounting professionals will all be affected by this shift, as will the standard-setting bodies themselves. Furthermore, the perspectives of certified public accountants (CPAs) and chief financial officers (CFOs) are evolving, as they increasingly recognize the value of international accounting harmonization. However, this change also brings up critical questions about the quality of international standards and the ongoing efforts to unify GAAP and IFRS, leaving many to ponder what the future holds for global financial reporting.

of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word reasonable implies intelligent care and deliberation that is the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19 and the social control permitted by clause 6 of Article 19 it must be held to be wanting in that quality.

discerning their objective of compliance with the Directive Principles of State Policy19. A Constitution Bench noted the importance of striking the right balance between social control and individual freedom. Articulated the limitation under Article 19 in the following terms The phrase reasonable restriction connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or

The text of the Constitution clarifies that the right to carry on trade or business is subject to reasonable restrictions which are imposed in the interests of the general public. This Court has propounded several tests for determining reasonableness for the purpose of Article 19. These have ranged from testing restrictions for arbitrariness17 excessiveness18 and

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.

In order to test this claim we will begin by analysing the precedents of this Court on the ambit of the freedom envisaged under Article 19. The relevant freedoms and restrictions with respect to trade under
the Indian Constitution are as Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.1) All citizens shall have the right g) to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business. 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 any law relating to i) the professional or

export between two different countries he urges that a complete prohibition on MTTs in relation to PPE products without a rational distinction of prohibiting their exports alone is a constitutionally suspect infringement of his freedom to conduct his business.

The appellant has contended that this Court has been circumspect of legislative provisions or executive policies that impose a total prohibition on a citizens right to conduct business. Since the appellant is engaged in MTTs which facilitate import and

A corporation cannot claim an infringement of rights under Article 19 as this fundamental right is only available to citizens and not to juristic persons. Over the years shareholders and business persons have filed petitions in their individual capacity to allege infringement of their fundamental right to carry on business or a profession of their choice16. The appellant argues that the RBI and UOIs prohibition of MTTs in respect of PPE products infringes his fundamental rights and freedoms under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The appellant is a citizen of India. He is also the Managing Director of Anzalp Herbal Products Private Limited a corporate body which inter alia engages in MTTs. In State Trading Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer15 a nine judge Bench of this Court has settled the question that corporations are not considered as citizens under the Constitution.

export is not prohibited under Indias FTP and iv) By a notification dated 25 August 2020 the export of PPE Masks and N95 FFP 2 Masks or equivalent has been categorized as Restricted while medical coveralls of all classes categories are now under the Free category.

ii) The appellant cannot be allowed to facilitate a transaction for PPE products between two foreign countries through MTTs since it would be against Indias national interest. Given the COVID19 pandemic such a restriction is reasonable iii) There is no complete prohibition under Clause 2 of the 2020 MTT Guidelines since the appellant is free to conduct MTTs in respect of goods whose import or