Analysis:

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the arguments presented by both sides. Regarding the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), the Court drew a crucial distinction between commercial advertising and other forms of speech. It held that while freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it does not extend to all forms of speech. The Court reasoned that commercial advertisements are primarily aimed at promoting trade or business and fall within the ambit of "trade or business" under Article 19(1)(g), rather than "speech and expression" under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court observed that the main object of an advertisement is to further commercial activity. While it may have an element of expression, its dominant purpose is trade. Therefore, regulations aimed at controlling misleading or harmful commercial advertisements are essentially regulations of trade and business and should be examined under the lens of Article 19(1)(g) and the reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(6).

Turning to the challenge under Article 19(1)(g), the Court considered whether the restrictions imposed by the Act were "reasonable" in the interests of public health. The Act aimed to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable individuals by prohibiting advertisements of remedies for diseases and conditions where self-medication could be harmful or ineffective. The Court recognized the importance of public health and held that the restrictions imposed by the Act were indeed reasonable and necessary to protect the public from quacks and unethical medical practices.

Regarding the issue of excessive delegation, the Court examined the provisions of the Act and found that sufficient guidelines were provided to the executive government in the Act itself. The Act specified the categories of diseases and conditions for which advertisements were prohibited, thus laying down the legislative policy. The power given to the executive to further specify certain diseases within those categories was deemed to be a matter of implementation and did not amount to excessive delegation of legislative power.

Judgement:

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The Court ruled that:

• 1. Commercial advertisements do not fall within the scope of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They are intrinsically linked to trade and commerce and are therefore subject to the limitations provided under Article 19(6).
• 2. The restrictions imposed by the Act on the advertisement of certain drugs and remedies were reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health under Article 19(6). The objective of preventing misleading and harmful advertisements for serious ailments served a crucial public interest.
• 3. The Act did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power. Sufficient guidelines were provided in the Act to guide the executive in its implementation.

Conclusion:

The Hamdard Dawakhana case remains a significant judicial pronouncement on the interplay between freedom of speech and expression and the regulation of commercial activities, particularly advertising. The judgment established a clear distinction between commercial speech and other forms of expression, placing commercial advertisements primarily within the realm of trade and business regulations.

The case underscored the importance of balancing fundamental rights with the need to protect public health and prevent exploitation. By upholding the validity of the Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the state's power to regulate commercial advertisements, especially those related to health, in the larger public interest.

While the interpretation of commercial speech has evolved in subsequent cases, the Hamdard Dawakhana case laid the groundwork for understanding that the freedom to advertise commercially is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions, especially when such restrictions are aimed at safeguarding public health and preventing misleading practices. This case continues to be a crucial reference point in matters concerning the regulation of advertising in India.