The senior advocate also pointed out that every person has a right to choose what he wants to eat and drink, and the government has no business in interfering in the same.
The Gujarat High Court on Friday finally sought a reply from the state government after a bunch of petitions demanding the freedom to consume alcohol at private places came up for hearing. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice AS Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav issued a formal notice to advocate general Kamal Trivedi, who will now have to argue the matter on behalf of the state government and directed him to file his reply within March 28.
Notably, senior advocate Percy Kavina argued before the court that many of these petitions were filed way back in October last year, but there was no progress in the cases except for simple adjournments and neither the state government clarified its stand on prohibition. The division bench clarified that there was no difficulty in taking up the cases and asked Kavina to, prima facie, satisfy it that the sections challenged by the petitioners are against the Constitution.
Kavina pointed out to the court that alcohol comes under the definition of 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and in light of the recent Supreme Court judgments on Right to Privacy and Right to Choice, prohibition on the consumption of alcohol in one's own privacy cannot be held illegal. The senior advocate also pointed out that every person has a right to choose what he wants to eat and drink, and the government has no business in interfering in the same.
The petitioners had contended that there is a sea change in the circumstances as compared to the situation prevailing in the 1950s when the ban was imposed. It was pointed out that the prohibition law violates the petitioners' Right to Privacy, Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They had submitted that the state has no business in intruding in a person's private matters unless he creates a situation that endangers social security. It had been argued 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 had stated that several sections of the Act are "arbitrary, irrational, unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory which negates the principles of equality". They had 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 had 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.
Can cannibalism be also allowed?
Kavina was stressing that since alcohol is a food, its consumption in one's own privacy cannot be held illegal. Justice Dave, expressing his humorous side, asked: "So, do you think cannibalism should be also allowed?" The advocate-on-record of the petitioners Bandish Soparkar was told: "Your name is Bandish. It means prohibition and you are fighting against prohibition". This left the entire courtroom in splits.
){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}
 "Alcohol prohibition")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}