1. A restriction on fundamental rights must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and proportional to the goal achieved. It must satisfy a four-pronged test: legitimate goal, rational nexus, least restrictive means, and balancing. (Para 132)
2. Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the State Government to prohibit or restrict the *driving* of motor vehicles (by class, description, or areas) for public safety or convenience. It does not confer power to regulate the *goods* loaded in vehicles or to restrict the movement of specific commodities. (Para 130, 140)
3. The impugned notification imposing a ban on carrying specific goods (sand and stone chips) by specified vehicles was arbitrary. It lacked cogent scientific data, empirical studies, or objective criteria substantiating a causal link between the cargo and road damage. Mere reliance on official letters was insufficient. (Para 132)
4. National Highways are under the exclusive legislative control of the Union Government (Entry 23, List I). The State cannot impose restrictions affecting interstate trade on National Highways without Central sanction. (Para 131)
5. Article 301 guarantees free trade, commerce, and intercourse. While reasonable restrictions are permitted under Article 304, they require Presidential sanction and must not transgress constitutional mandates. The statutory power under Section 115 cannot override the constitutional guarantee of free trade. (Para 129, 130)
6. The State cannot act in pursuance of public safety where the Central Government has already exercised its powers under Sections 58, 110, and 114 regarding weight, height, and axle regulations. (Para 133)
7. The notification was quashed, and directions were issued for the enforcement of speed limits, weighing mechanisms (Section 114), and load signage as per Chapter VIII of the MV Act.
