Gujarat liquor law case: ‘What stops state from saying no non-veg tomorrow’, lawyer argues

After the Gujarat authorities argued within the Excessive Courtroom that authorized challenges to the state’s prohibition Act weren’t maintainable as a result of the Supreme Courtroom had upheld these sections in 1951, the petitioners on Tuesday contended that a number of such provisions have seen “materials modifications” over time.

Advocate Basic Kamal Trivedi on June 21 had argued that besides for 2 sections, the remaining sections of the Act being challenged by the petitioners have already been upheld by the Supreme Courtroom in 1951, and thus a recent problem on two new grounds — ‘manifest arbitrariness’ and proper to privateness — can’t be entertained earlier than the Gujarat HC and may solely be checked out by the SC.

Six petitions are earlier than the Gujarat HC, together with a PIL, difficult the Act, totally on the grounds of proper to privateness and of ‘manifest arbitrariness’, as has been laid down in circumstances such Shayara Bano versus Union of India (which criminalised triple talaq) and Navtej Johar versus Union of India (which decriminalised homosexuality).

Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, representing one of many petitioners, Tuesday submitted three key arguments on why the Gujarat HC can take a look at the problem afresh.

First, he argued that the preliminary objections raised by the state on the maintainability of the petitions can’t be termed ‘preliminary objections’, as they go into the very advantage of the case.

“Two, one of many precept grounds raised within the petition is correct of privateness….finally what a citizen or a person or a human being does throughout the confines of his 4 partitions… and the state has no proper to peek into that window. That’s the precept problem that has been raised…This proper of privateness has been given voice by judgments of 2017 and onwards. Subsequently this by no means fell for consideration, couldn’t have fallen for consideration, 60 years again,” Joshi argued.

Joshi mentioned new grounds, “which have come up by constitutional interpretation the place new elementary rights have obtained exposition and recognition by the SC” may be taken up.

“On this case, we’re expressly saying that we’re questioning this proper to not drink within the privateness of my house with out state interference, is an intrinsic factor of proper of foods and drinks of a person. What stops the state from coming and saying, ‘no non veg meals in your own home’ from tomorrow? So we’re testing that proper, that parens patriae (mother or father of the nation) feeling of state must be prolonged to which extent and that could be a proper which finds expression in (retd Justice KS) Puttuswamy (and Anr versus Union of India and Ors, SC judgment of 2017 that held proper to privateness as a elementary proper) onwards,” he mentioned.

The case is being heard earlier than a division bench headed by Chief Justice Vikram Nath.

“Third, the judgments of Joseph Shine, Navtej Johar (by SC) and so forth, have taken the view that the regulation which can be held constitutional at one level of time, could with the modifications in society, modifications in morality, modifications in morales be held as unconstitutional…there’s a precept which is recognised that if the reasoning or rationale of the regulation goes, then the regulation itself should go…a regulation as soon as held legitimate, can turn into unconstitutional with the passage of time,” argued Joshi.
The matter has been posted for additional arguments on the maintainability of the petitions for Wednesday.

Scroll to Top