1951 (5) TMI 3 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Act the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act No. XXV of 1949) to be invalid? Held that - It is quite clear that the provisions held to be invalid are not inextricably bound up with the remaining provisions of the Act, and it is difficult to hold that the legislature would not have enacted the Act at all without including that part which is found to be ultra vires. The Act still remains substantially the Act as it was passed, i.e., an Act amending and consolidating the law relating to the promotion and enforcement of the policy of prohibition and also the Abkari law in the Province of Bombay. In the result, the following provisions of the Act declared only to be invalid -- (1) Clause (c) of section 12, so far as it affects the possession of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. (2) Clause (d)of section 12, so far as it affects the selling or buying of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. (3) Clause (b) of section 13, so far as it affects the consumption or use of such medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol. (4) Clause (a) of section 23, so far as it prohibits the commendation of any intoxicant or hemp. (5) Clause (b) of section 23, in entirety. (6) Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 24, so far as it prohibits commendation of any intoxicant or hemp. (7) Sub-section (1) of section 136, in entirety. (8) Clauses (b), (c), (e), and (f) of sub-section (2) of section 136, in their entirety. Rest of the provisions of the Act are valid, and also some of the provisions of the Act to be invalid does not affect the validity of the Act as it remains.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the entire Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
2. Validity of specific provisions of the Act.
3. Whether the Act encroaches on the Central Legislature's domain.
4. Whether the Act interferes with inter-State trade and commerce.
5. Whether the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. Whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
7. Validity of certain notifications issued under the Act.

Analysis:

1. Validity of the Entire Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949:
The Act was challenged on three main grounds:
- Encroachment on the Central Legislature's domain.
- Interference with inter-State trade and commerce.
- The High Court's declaration of several provisions as void making the Act as a whole invalid.

The Supreme Court held that the Act did not encroach upon the Central Legislature's domain as it dealt with the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of intoxicating liquors, which is within the powers of the Provincial Legislature under Entry 31 of List II. The Court also found no conflict between Entry 31 of List II and Entry 19 of List I, as the Act did not deal with the import and export of goods across customs frontiers. Furthermore, the Act did not violate Section 297 of the Government of India Act, 1935, as it was not made under entries 27 or 29 of List II but under Entry 31.

2. Validity of Specific Provisions of the Act:
- Definition of "Liquor" (Section 2(24)): The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the definition was too wide. It held that the word "liquor" covers not only beverages but also all liquids containing alcohol, including medicinal and toilet preparations.

- Section 39: The Court found that the exemption granted to military and naval messes, canteens, warships, and troopships did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution as the legislature had a reasonable basis for this classification.

- Sections 23(a), 23(b), 24(1)(a), and 24(1)(b): The Court agreed with the High Court that these sections, which prohibited commending intoxicants, were void as they violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

- Sections 136(1), 136(2)(b), 136(2)(c), 136(2)(e), 136(2)(f): The High Court's judgment declaring these sections void was upheld as no arguments were presented to challenge this finding.

3. Encroachment on the Central Legislature's Domain:
The Court held that the Act did not encroach upon the Central Legislature's domain as it dealt with matters within the Provincial Legislature's competence under Entry 31 of List II, and there was no conflict with Entry 19 of List I.

4. Interference with Inter-State Trade and Commerce:
The Court found that the Act did not interfere with inter-State trade and commerce as it was not made under entries 27 or 29 of List II but under Entry 31.

5. Violation of Article 14:
The Court found that Section 39 did not violate Article 14 as the classification made by the legislature was reasonable. However, the Court agreed with the High Court that the word "addict" in the medical certificate required for permits was unwarranted and should be replaced with language corresponding to Section 40(1)(b) of the Act.

6. Violation of Article 19(1)(f):
The Court held that the restrictions on the possession, sale, purchase, consumption, or use of medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol were unreasonable and thus void. However, the restrictions on spirits of wine, methylated spirits, wine, beer, and toddy were reasonable in view of the directive principles of State policy regarding prohibition.

7. Validity of Certain Notifications:
- Notification No. 10484/45(c): The Court held that this notification was valid as Section 139(c) was found to be valid.
- Notification No. 2843/49(a): The Court found no substantial ground for holding this notification invalid as it did not violate the principle of equality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared the following provisions of the Act invalid:
1. Clause (c) of Section 12, so far as it affects the possession of liquid medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol.
2. Clause (d) of Section 12, so far as it affects the selling or buying of such preparations.
3. Clause (b) of Section 13, so far as it affects the consumption or use of such preparations.
4. Clause (a) of Section 23, so far as it prohibits the commendation of any intoxicant or hemp.
5. Clause (b) of Section 23, in entirety.
6. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24, so far as it prohibits commendation of any intoxicant or hemp.
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 136, in entirety.
8. Clauses (b), (c), (e), and (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 136, in their entirety.

The rest of the provisions of the Act were held to be valid. The appeal by the State of Bombay was substantially allowed, and the appeal by the petitioner was dismissed. The Court made no order as to costs, considering the nature of the case.

← Previous Next →