DATE OF JUDGMENT:
25th May 1951
JUDGE:
Justice Faizal Ali, Justice Saiyid, Justice M. Patanjali Mukhirjea, Justice B.K Das,
Justice Sudhi Ranjan, Justice Vivian
PARTIES:
State of Bombay and others (Appellants)
Fram Nuservanjee Balsara (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The questions on which the apex court was called upon, to decide were:
- whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Bombay Prohibition Act to be invalid
- to what extent the judgment of the High Court can be upheld concerning the specific provisions of the Act which have been declared by it to be void.
OVERVIEW
- FN Balsara filed a petition in the Bombay High Court with the following prayer:
a) To allow him to exercise his right to possess, consume, and use certain articles, such as whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, eau-de-cologne etc. And to import and export across the Customs frontier.
b) To abstain government from interfering with his rights to possess these articles.
- The High Court agreed with the petitioner that the definition of “liquor” in the Act was too broad. The definition was beyond the power vested in the legislature to legislate concerning intoxicating liquors under item 31 of List II.
- The High Court also held various provisions of the act legal while some others as illegal.
- As a result, the State of Bombay and petitioner, both being, dissatisfied filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- 19 (1) (g) of Indian Constitution: To practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
- Entry 31, List II of the Government of India Act, 1935: Intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of intoxicating liquors
- Entry 19, List I of the Government of India Act, 1935: Import and export of liquors across a customs frontier
ANALYSIS
- The questions on which the Supreme Court was called upon to decide were:
- whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Bombay Prohibition Act to be invalid
- To what extent the judgment of the High Court can be upheld concerning the specific provisions of the Act which have been declared by it to be void.
- The state legislature has the power to prohibit the keeping, selling and using intoxicating wine. Hence the dispute between the jurisdiction of the state and the centre does not arise.
- The Supreme court held that any act passed by the state legislature, which prohibits or controls the export of the things provided in Entry 27 and 29 of List II, is outside the boundaries of the state. Then the act will be termed illegal.
- The Bombay Prohibition Act has been passed under Entry 31 of List II. Hence, Section 297(1)(a) does not apply.
- Under section 37, exemption provided to Army, the messes of the Land Forces and Water Ships cannot be declared illegal.
- The court held various provisions illegal, which were regarding keeping alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods etc.
- The Supreme court held that, by declaring few provisions of an act illegal, an act, cannot be wholly declared illegal.
CONCLUSION
This decision is significant in constitutional law because it clarified several ambiguities around the doctrine of pith and substance but, Sythentics and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors overruled the validity of the present case.
As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that, in medical preparations, complete prohibition of alcohol is attainable. Unless used for human consumption, such a trade cannot be called hazardous.
However, because the human consumption of alcohol is considered a luxury, the State Legislature has the authority to collect taxes on their possession. As a result, an Act enacted by the State Government on a subject over which it has constitutional authority is legitimate.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
