| CITATION | AIR 1951 SC 318 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 25TH MAY, 1951 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
| APPELLANT | STATE OF BOMBAY |
| RESPONDENT | F.N. BALSARA |
| BENCH | FAZAL ALI SAIYID, SASTRI M. PATANJALI, MUKHERJEA B.K., DAS SUDHI RANJAN, BOSE VIVIAN |
INTRODUCTION
The case draws attention to constitutional law provisions. The idea of pith and substance (the concept holds that the state and union legislatures are made supreme within their respective areas, and they should not intrude on the sphere delineated for the other) was employed in this instance, which aids in determining the genuine character and essence of the law. The petitioner claimed that the Bombay Prohibition Act violated Indian Constitution Article 19(1)(g). As a result, it must be declared null and invalid.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- F.N. Balsara petitioned the High Court for a writ of mandamus against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner, requesting that they refrain from executing the provisions of the Prohibition Act against him.
- The Petitioner prayed for the right to possess, consume, and use certain articles, such as whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, Eau-de-cologne, and so on, as well as to import and export across the Customs border and to purchase, possess, consume, and use any stock of foreign spirits, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines, and medicinal preparations containing alcohol.
- He further asked that the government refrain from interfering with his right to own these things and that no measures or processes, punitive or otherwise, be taken against him under the Act. The petitioner sought remedy from the respondents under Section 45 of the Specific Remedy Act. The term “liquor” in the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 is criticized for being excessively broad and exceeding the authority of the provincial assembly.
- The Bombay High Court agreed with some of the Petitioner’s arguments while disagreeing with others, ruling that some provisions of the Act were legal while others were unlawful.
- Both sides were displeased with the High Court of Bombay’s decision, and the State Government filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act are valid or not?
- The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus of an order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Whether the Bombay High Court’s decision to declare a clause unlawful should be maintained.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The state of Bombay herein is the petitioner in the current appeal and the contention of same is that the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act are intra vires to that of Article 19(1)(g) enshrined in the constitution of India.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
F.N. Balsara said that he should be granted permission to exercise his right to store Whisky, Brandy, Wine, Beer, and medication U.D. Colon, among other things. He also noted that they might be used imported and exported within Customs limits. Furthermore, the government must not impede him from using such substances under the Prohibition Act since it was his personal right, and equivalent orders must be issued under the Specific Relief Act.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court bench of Fazal Ali Saiyid, Sastri M. Patanjali, Mukherjee B.K., Das Sudhi Ranjan, and Bose Vivian JJ ruled as follows:
The authority granted to the State Legislature under Entry 31 of List II to ban the possession, sale, and use of alcoholic liquor is unquestionable.
Section 297(1)(a) of the contested Act is not applicable since it was approved under List II Entry 31 rather than 27 or 29. As a result, the Act was not unlawful.
Section 12(c), which prohibits the sale or purchase of such alcoholic medicinal and toilet preparations, was declared unconstitutional.
Section 37 did not make the exception granted to the armed forces unconstitutional. The decision to find part of the Act’s provisions unlawful has no bearing on the Act’s overall legitimacy. As a result, Appeal No. 182, filed by the State of Bombay, was partially granted.
CONCLUSION
The current case was valid until the verdict in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Others v. State of U.P. terminated it. As a result, the use of alcohol in medicinal preparation may also be restricted. As a result, it is conceivable to conclude that total restriction of alcohol is achievable in medicinal preparations. Unless processed for human consumption, such a trade cannot be called detrimental. However, the State Legislature may collect taxes on the possession of alcoholic beverages appropriate for human use since they are deemed luxuries. Therefore, if the State Government enacts an Act on a topic over which it has constitutional authority, the Act is legitimate.
REFERENCE
- https://indiankanoon.org
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-pith-and-substance
- https://legalvidhiya.com
- https://www.drishtiias.com
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com
- https://www.ourlegalworld.com
- https://www.lawinsider.in
This Article is written by Bhoomi Sharma student of Lloyd Law College, CCS; an Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
