State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318

INTRODUCTION

The case of” State of Bombay V .F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318” highlights the provisions of constitutional law. By applying the doctrine of pith and substance which helps to concern the true character and nature of legislation. In this case it has been considered as to whether under the Prohibition Act, the  safekeeping of alcohol mixed  drugs and  bathroom good their selling and buying and  utilizing can be banned or not.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Validity of certain specific provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949( Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949), as well as of the Act as total was challenged. For the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering them( 1) to allow him to exercise his right to retain, consume and use certain papers, videlicet, whisky, brandy, wine, beer, rehabilitate eau- decologne,etc. The supplicant( FN BALSARA), supplicated to the High Court inter alia for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner ordering them to abstain from taking action under the provisions of the Prohibition Act against him and for the issue of a writ of mandamus ordering them( 1) to allow him to exercise his abecedarian right to retain, consume and use certain papers, videlicet, whisky, brandy, wine, beer, treated wine,etc. and to import and export across the customs frontier and to buy, retain, consume and use any stock of foreign liquor, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, treated wines and medicinal medications containing alcohol, and( 2) to forbear from snooping with his right to retain these papers and to take no way or proceedings against him, correctional under the Act. The supplicant also requested for an analogous order U/ S 45 of the SRA against the repliers. The High Court, agreeing with some of the supplicant’s contentions and non concurring with others, declared some of the vittles of the Act to be invalid and the rest to be valid. Both the State of Bombay and the supplicant, being displeased with the judgment of the High Court, have appealed to this Court after carrying an instrument from the High Court U/ A 132( 1) of the Constitution.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the entire Act to be void; 
2. Whether the judgment of the Bombay High Court can be upheld with regard to the specific provisions of the Act which have been promulgated by it to be void.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

1. That the object of the Prohibition Act wasn’t simply to tax excise duties but also to forbid use, consumption, possession and trade of intoxicating liquor, the council had the power to enact upon the subjects included in the Act not only under Entry 31 of List II, but also under Entry 14, which refers inter alia to public health. 
2. That the military force has been regarded in this country as a class by itself, and there are numerous special provisions with regard to it.
3.  That the idea of prohibition is connected with public health, and to apply prohibition effectively the wider description of the word “ liquor ” would have to be embraced so as to include all alcoholic liquids which may be used as reserves for intoxicating drinks, to the detriment of health.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. 1. That the definition of “ liquor ” in the Act was too wide and went beyond the power vested in the legislative assembly to legislate with regard to intoxicating liquors under Item 31 of List II.
2. That the proscriptions contained in the impugned Act in regard to the use, consumption, purchase, transport, possession and  trade of intoxicating liquor will  ipso facto amount to  forbidding and  limiting inter-provincial commerce, and inasmuch as they tend to stop and  limit entry into or import from the Province of Bombay of goods of a particular class or description, the Act contravenes Section 297( 1)( a).
3. That the  privilege  laid out to the warships, troopship, and military and nonmilitary messes and canteens is a violation of the principle of equality and the legislature has acted arbitrarily and capriciously in  opting  certain bodies or groups of people for favoured treatment, while  subjugating the petitioner and other citizens to the general provisions of the Act. 

JUDGEMENT

1. After hearing the various facts and legal points involved, the Court  referred to the doctrine of Pith & Substance principle and held that the state government  enjoyed the authority to  check and  bar the  trade and consumption of alcohol within its territory.  
2. Some of the provisions were held invalid so far as it affects the possession of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations  holding alcohol. As the provisions which violated the abecedarian rights and contrary to the were held void and rest of the provisions of the Act were held valid.
3. Honorable Court  announced following provision of the act as invalid and void-( 1) Clause C of Section 12, so far as it affects the possession of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.( 2) Clause( d) of Section 12, so far as it affects the selling or buying of  similar medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.( 3) Clause( b) of Section 13, so far as it affects the consumption Or use of  similar medicinal and toilet medications containing alcohol. –( 4) Clause( a) of Section 23, so far it prohibits the as commendation of any intoxicant or hemp.( 5) Clause( b) of Section 23, in  wholeness.( 6) Clause( a) of sub-section( 1) of Section 24, so far as it prohibits  mention of any intoxicant or hemp.( 7)Sub-section( 1) of Section 36, in  wholeness.( 8) Clauses( b),( c),€ and( f) of sub-section( 2) of Section 136, in their  wholeness  

CONCLUSION

The present case is not treated as precedent as it was overruled by judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sythentics and Chemicals Ltd. And Others v. State of U.P. and Others.

The Supreme Court, after considering the constitutional provisions and principles, ruled that the Bombay Prohibition (Extension to Aden) Act, 1949 was ultra vires. The court held that the Bombay Legislature lacked the jurisdiction to legislate for Aden. The case set an important precedent regarding the limits of legislative powers, emphasizing that laws enacted by a state or province are generally confined to its territorial jurisdiction unless there are specific constitutional provisions allowing extraterritorial application.

REFERENCE

1. https://legalvidhiya.com/the-state-of-bombay-and-another-vs-f-n-balsara/ 
2. https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/state-of-bombay-and-ors-vs-f-n-balsara 
3. https://www.main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1182.pdf/ 

This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin