9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Power of State Government to regulate transport, possession, and consumption of Ayurvedic preparations under U.P. Excise Act, 1910. 2. Validity of notifications issued by State Government regarding Ayurvedic preparations. 3. Interpretation of Article 47 of the Constitution in relation to prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Analysis: 1. The case involved questions concerning the authority of the State Government to control the transport, possession, and consumption of Ayurvedic preparations under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The appellants, a manufacturer, and a wholesale dealer of Ayurvedic preparations challenged notifications issued by the State Government, which declared these preparations as 'liquor' and imposed regulations on their sale and possession in a district where prohibition was in effect. 2. The State Government issued several notifications, including the removal of exemptions under the U.P. Excise Act for Ayurvedic preparations, declaring them as 'liquor' for regulatory purposes, and publishing rules to prevent misuse. The Excise Commissioner also set limits on the possession of specific Ayurvedic preparations. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity of these notifications, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. The petitioners relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in the State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, which dealt with restrictions on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court in the Balsara case had invalidated certain provisions of the Act, emphasizing that medicinal preparations should be excluded from prohibition measures unless there is a clear risk of misuse by addicts. 4. The Supreme Court, in the present case, disagreed with the interpretation in the Balsara case. The Court highlighted Article 47 of the Constitution, which outlines the State's duty to improve public health and enforce prohibition of intoxicating drinks and harmful drugs. The Court opined that medicinal preparations with high alcohol content should not be automatically excluded from prohibition measures, as they could still be misused as alcoholic beverages, potentially leading to addiction issues. 5. The Court expressed that waiting for misuse before taking action is not prudent, and regulating the legitimate use of medicinal preparations containing alcohol is within the State's purview to prevent addiction problems. The Court emphasized that Article 47 does not mandate the exclusion of medicinal preparations from prohibition, especially when they contain significant alcohol content. The Court concluded that allowing unrestricted consumption of such preparations would undermine the objective of prohibition and authorized the regulation of their possession and consumption under the Excise Act. 6. Consequently, the Supreme Court referred the case to a Constitution Bench for further consideration and directed the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice for necessary actions. The judgment signifies the importance of balancing public health concerns and regulatory measures in the context of prohibition laws and the interpretation of constitutional directives regarding intoxicating substances.
|
