1987 (10) TMI 346 - SC - Central Excise

CENTRAL EXCISE PROHIBITION POWER OF STATE OF IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, POSSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF MEDICINAL PREPARATIONS CONTAINING COMPARATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF ALCOHOL

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of notifications issued under the U.P. Excise Act regarding regulation of ayurvedic preparations, interpretation of State Government's power to regulate possession and consumption of medicinal preparations containing alcohol, applicability of previous Supreme Court judgment in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [1951] 2 SCR 682, and the interpretation of Article 47 of the Constitution.

Analysis:

The judgment by K. Jagannatha Shetty, J., addresses the questions raised regarding the State Government's power to regulate the transport, possession, and consumption of ayurvedic preparations under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The case involves a manufacturer and a wholesale dealer of ayurvedic preparations challenging notifications issued by the State Government that declared these preparations as "liquor" and introduced rules regulating their sale and possession, particularly in districts where prohibition was in effect. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of these notifications, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

The petitioners argued that the issue at hand was similar to the decision in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara [1951] 2 SCR 682, where the Supreme Court held that restrictions on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol under the Bombay Prohibition Act were unreasonable. The Balsara case emphasized the exclusion of medicinal preparations from prohibition laws and highlighted the need for a distinction between misuse and legitimate use. However, the current judgment disagrees with the Balsara case, stating that waiting for misuse before regulation is not prudent. The Court interprets Article 47 of the Constitution, emphasizing the State's duty to improve public health and nutrition and to bring about the prohibition of intoxicating drinks and harmful drugs, without explicitly excluding medicinal preparations containing alcohol.

The Court concludes that Article 47 does not mandate the exclusion of medicinal preparations from prohibition, especially those with high alcohol content. It asserts that the State should have the power to regulate the possession and consumption of such preparations to effectively enforce prohibition and prevent misuse. As a result, the Court refers the case to a Constitution Bench for further consideration and disposal, highlighting the need for a comprehensive examination of the issues raised in the context of constitutional principles and public health objectives.