Added: Tashika Stangl - Date: 17.11.2021 23:00 - Views: 21013 - Clicks: 7265
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday reserved order on the maintainability of a batch of petitions challenging the prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor in the state vide the Gujarat Prohibition Act,on grounds of 'manifest arbitrariness' and violation of 'right to privacy'.
The State had raised preliminary objections to the challenge. FN Balsara where validity of Sections 12, 13 of the Act prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor was upheld. The Petitioners however contended that challenge to the legislation before the Supreme Court was only to the limited extent of medicinal and toilet preparation.
It was stated that question of validity of prohibiting consumption of alcohol was not decided by the Supreme Court and it is in this context that the Gujarat High Court is competent to adjudicate. Joshi also argued that a new right to privacy, under the generic umbrella of Article 21 was conferred on the citizens in Therefore, the Supreme Court had no occasion to be deemed to have heard the matter in Yesterday, Joshi had linked the right to privacy with the citizens' right to eat and drink as per their choice and remarked, "What's to stop the Right for drinks and nsa from coming into our homes and saying, no non-veg from tomorrow?
He argued that the Right to life under Article 21 can be regulated by procedure established by law, and the Prohibition Act is that procedure. He conceded that law in general is dynamic and may require reconsideration at times in context with changing dynamics of the society, however, the same has to be done before a forum that declared the law as valid. Trivedi repeatedly argued that the Supreme Court had decided validity of the Act as a whole in the Balsara judgment, and therefore the High Court is bound by it under Article He said that the Top Court not only examined the Act from one point of view of 'legal competus' but also touched Article 14, 19 1 f in its Judgment and finally held that restrictions imposed by Prohibition Act are reasonable.
If these go, whole Act should fall flat. But my learned friend says that SC examined validity of these provisions from point of legislative competence alone. I say it has been examined in all respects So long as it is not included, those Sections are upheld, " Trivedi argued. He also cited List II Entry 8 to argue that State is competent to regulate production, possession, purchase, sale, etc.
He further cited Entry 51 thereof whereby State is excluded from regulating medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. The Petitioners had also argued that some provisions whose validity was decided by the Supreme Court in have been "materially amended" since and certain provisions have been added by way of subsequent amendments. Responding to this, Trivedi claimed that the amendments are 'cosmetic' in nature and substance of original provisions has been kept intact.
Its consumption has ill effects on down trodden, " he added. Advocate Devan Parikh, appearing in support of the Petitioners, argued that not everything said by a Judge is ratio decidendi. Other elements of a Judgment are not binding" he said. He further submitted that the case is not 'per incuriam' because the Petitioners in Balsara Judgment did not argue on validity of prohibition on consumption of liquor.
Advocate Saurabh Soparkar, also appearing in support of the Petitioners, argued that the judgments cited by the AG in support of his case were given at end of a full-fledged Trial. If an interpretation is to be given in a proceeding, it must be in favor of a full-fledged herein rather than a truncated one. Please give new look to the matter otherwise Constitutional progress will never take place. I expect State to grapple with issue on merits and assist the Court in coming to an authoritative finding, " Advocate Percy Kavina submitted. Chapter 3 of the impugned Act deals with prohibition on manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor vide Sections 12, 13 and 13B of the Act.
Chapter 4 provides for Control, regulation and exemptions. The Petitioners had moved Right for drinks and nsa High Court stating that two new grounds for challenging the Act have been laid down by the Supreme Court postin several cases. The second ground is based on 'right to privacy' ,'right to be left alone' and 'right to consume liquor within four walls of one's home'— which they argue is a facet of right to privacy that was recognized by the Supreme Court in KS Puttaswamy v.
Union of India. Advocate Devan Parikh stated that the judgment of Supreme Court which decides on competence of legislature, is limited and it is still open to other parties to challenge it as violative of their fundamental rights.
FN Balsara where validity of the Act was upheld. Akshita Saxena. Share This. Your free access to Live Law has expired. Premium gives you:. Today, Advocate Mihir Joshi argued that the Supreme Court had itself noted in the Judgment that the restrictions imposed by the legislation sections on the right of a citizen to possess, sell or consume alcohol, was not been disputed before it in view of the directive principles of State policy.
Case Title: Rajiv Piyush Patel v. State Of Gujarat. Similar Posts. Law Firms. Latest News. Job Updates.Right for drinks and nsa
email: [email protected] - phone:(983) 224-8170 x 7139
5 alcoholic drinks that are good for your skin!