The state government is yet to file a reply in the matter, with the case getting adjourned time and again whenever it is scheduled for a hearing.
The Gujarat High Court had on October 24 directed the state government to clarify stand on its liquor prohibition policy after a petition demanding the freedom to consume alcohol at private places came up for hearing. However, till date, the state government is yet to file a reply in the matter, with the case getting adjourned time and again whenever it is scheduled for a hearing.
Notably, the petitioners—Rajiv Patel, Milind Nene, and Niharika Joshi— had contended before the court that the prohibition violates the Right of Privacy and their constitutional Right to Equality and Freedom of Expression. So far, the case has been listed for hearing on three occasions—October 30, November 26, and December 6, but the state has not filed any affidavit clarifying its stand on the issue.
Now, the next hearing of the matter is scheduled for December 14. Since the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Bombay Prohibition Rules, the then division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice VM Pancholi had clarified that it will first hear the government's stand on the issue. The bench had also stated that if it is not satisfied by the government's stand, a notice will be issued to the advocate general, who will then have to argue in the matter. Notably, the Act prohibits a person from carrying, possessing, and drinking liquor at his or her private place.
Senior advocate Mihir Thakore, appearing for the petitioners, had contended before the court that there is a sea change in the circumstances as compared to the situation prevailing in the 1950s when the ban was imposed. Thakore had pointed out that the Supreme Court has stressed time and again on the Right to Privacy and the right of an individual to choose what he wants to eat and drink.
The senior advocate had argued that the prohibition law violates the petitioners' Right to Privacy, Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He had further argued that the state has no business in intruding in a person's private matters unless he creates a situation that endangers social security. It was then also pointed out to the court that the consumption of liquor is a prehistoric tradition for humans and denying it is against one's right to live a dignified and quality life.
DIFFERENT TAKE
- Interestingly, the petitioners had stated that several sections of the Act are “arbitrary, irrational, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory which negates the principles of equality”.
- They cited the adverse impact of liquor prohibition in Gujarat—a pendency of 3.99 lakh cases till 2017 of which 55,000 cases were under the Bombay Prohibition Act
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Justice")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}