Petitioners says prohibition on liquor consumption in private space against Right to Privacy and Equality
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday asked the state government to clarify its stand on the liquor prohibition policy after a petition demanding the freedom to consume alcohol in private places came up for hearing.
Notably, the petitioners — Rajiv Patel, Milind Nene, and Niharika Joshi — have contended before the court that the prohibition violates the Right to Privacy and their Constitutional Right to Equality and Freedom of Speech and Expression.
Since the petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the Bombay Prohibition Rules, the division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice VM Pancholi clarified that it will first hear the government's stand on the issue. The bench also clarified that if it is not satisfied with the government's stand, a notice will be issued to the advocate general who will have to then arbitrate on the matter. 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 contended before the court that there is a sea change in the circumstances as compared to the situation prevailing in the 1950's when the ban was imposed. Thakore pointed out that the Supreme Court has stressed time and again on the Right to Privacy and the right of an individual to chose what he wants to eat and drink.
The senior advocate argued that the prohibition law violates the petitioners' Right to Privacy, Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He further argued that the state has no business in intruding into a person's private matters unless he creates a situation that endangers social security. It was 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.
Interestingly, the petitioners have contended that several sections of the Act are "arbitrary, irrational, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory which negates the principles of equality". They have also 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 and the hooch tragedies taking place one after the other. It has been also argued that the state government's policy of issuing permits to drink alcohol creates a class of privileged people, which is not permissible in law.
ARCHAIC LAW
Senior advocate Mihir Thakore appearing for the petitioners contended before the court that there is a sea change in the circumstances as compared to the situation prevailing in the 1950’s when the liquor ban was imposed.
){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}
){kind=small}
 "Liquor consumption")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}