As per case facts, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958. This Act required sugar manufacturers using the vacuum pan process to deliver a certain ... quota of sugar for export, leading to a loss for them, with penalties for non-compliance. Concurrently, the Central Government had increased the internal sale price of sugar under a different statute, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to help manufacturers recover these export losses. The petitioners contended that this price increase under a separate, unconnected statute should not be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Sugar Export Promotion Act, arguing it violated their fundamental rights related to equality and trade. The question arose whether the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, imposed unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners' fundamental rights and discriminated against them, and if a notification under an unconnected statute could be considered to assess the reasonableness of these restrictions. Finally, the Supreme Court (majority) upheld the constitutionality of the impugned Act, ruling that the restrictions were not unreasonable. It was reasoned that the arrangements made to offset losses through increased internal sugar prices, effectively passing the burden to consumers, and considering contemporaneous legislation as part of a broader legislative plan, made the restrictions reasonable. The Court also found the selection of vacuum pan sugar for export to be a reasonable classification, serving the national interest by earning foreign exchange and stabilizing the sugar market.