Author: Sonal Rai
Edited by: Shadrack Chai
ABSTRACT
|
Judgement Cause Title / Case Name |
State of Bombay and Ors. v. F.N. Balsara |
|
Case Number |
Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1951 |
|
Judgement Date |
25/05/1951 |
|
Court |
Supreme Court of India |
|
Quorum / Constitution of Bench |
Saiyid Fazal Ali, M. Patanjali Shastri, B.K. Mukherjea, Sudhi Ranjan Das, Vivian Bose |
|
Author |
Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali |
|
Citation |
1951 AIR 318, 951 SCR 682 |
|
Legal Provisions Involved |
Article 14, Article 19(1), Article 32, Article 47, and Article 132 of the Constitution of India Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Government of India Act, 1935 Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India |
This case concerned the rights of the petitioner to practice any profession or occupation of the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol and import and export of alcohol in the state of Bombay. The state legislature enacted an act named the Bombay Prohibition Act, of 1949 which prohibits alcohol and its trade. The petitioner exercised his right to issue a writ of mandamus guaranteed under Article 32 before the High Court of Bombay. The writ highlights the jurisdictional limits of the authority in exercising its powers. The Supreme Court determined the scope of state legislative lists and the importance of a balance between fundamental rights and personal liberties. The ruling undermined the power of the state authority to impose reasonable restrictions to serve the public welfare in the state. The judgement serves as an example of such measures that will take place in future.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case of State of Bombay and Others v. F.N. Balsara is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India. It addressed the conflict between the law passed by the state legislation and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The main issue was whether the state had the authority to prohibit alcohol and whether such a ban would infringe upon citizens’ fundamental rights. The Bombay Prohibition Act, of 1949, sought a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol in the state of Bombay. The Act was challenged in the court that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), and 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to equality, the right to freedom, and the right to life and personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. The respondents argued that the ban violated these fundamental rights. The case mainly addresses the interpretation of the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Procedural Background of the Case: The petitioner F.N. Balsara moved to the High Court and invoked the writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner to restrain the order of enforcement of the Prohibition Act provisions against him. Then this order was appealed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution.
Factual Background of the Case: The petitioner also prayed for a similar relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court declared that some of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 are invalid and the rest to be valid. The court agreed with some of the petitioner’s contentions and not all. The Bombay Prohibition Act,1949 was passed by the legislature of the Province of Bombay as it was constituted in 1949. The act was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on 20th May 1949 and the date of enforcement was 16th June 1949. However, the petitioner dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Constitution challenging the act to be unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights of the individuals.[1]
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the state have the authority to enforce such a prohibition under the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the appeal filed under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution upheld the High Court decision and determined that the impugned Act violated the fundamental rights of individuals and could be declared unconstitutional. [2]
PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prohibition act fell outside the scope of the state list and encroached upon the subjects reserved for the Union Lists or the Concurrent List, thus questioning the legislative incompetence of the state.
It is also contended that the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 violated the fundamental rights of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution. Article 19 of the Constitution of India which grants the right to profess, practice and propagate any profession or occupation within the territory of India is violated by the act.
They argued that the complete ban on the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol is unreasonable and the state has not demonstrated that the prohibition was a necessary and proportionate measure for public health and safety. What is contended is that the law enforced has arbitrarily favoured selected groups of people like military personnel and the distinction between civil population and military personnel cannot be made on any rational ground for the enforcement of the prohibition act.
It is further contended by the petitioners to what extent the judgement of the High Court can be upheld about the specific provision of the Act which has been declared by it to be void.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The respondents claimed that the state has the authority to enact such law and the state acted within its jurisdiction and did not infringe on subjects reserved under the Union Lists or Concurrent Lists. They maintained that the act made the classifications reasonably with the purpose and it did not violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The respondents maintained that the restrictions were justified by the aim of public welfare and health and fell within the permissible limits.
It was further clarified that Article 21 is not violated by the act as it did not arbitrarily interfere with personal liberties.
Related Provisions
Constitution of India
Article 14 (Equality before law) “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”
Article 19(1) (g): Right to Freedom of Trade, Occupation, and Business
Article 19(6) implies that “the state may impose reasonable restrictions on this right, as outlined below are:
Reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public Prescribe professional or technical qualifications, necessary for practising any profession, or carrying on any occupation, trade or business Enable the state to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens, wholly or partially.”
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty – no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty.
Article 132 – “An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies—(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution; and (b) that in the opinion of the High Court, the said question is so important that it should be decided by the Supreme Court.”
Article 32 – has bestowed a power upon the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs including the writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, quo-warranto, prohibition and certiorari whichever may be suitable for the discharge of any of the fundamental rights in a given case. These writs are also known as “Prerogative writs” for the reason of being taken from the English law.
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 – an act of the Bombay Legislative Assembly relating to the promotion and enforcement of alcohol was passed which imposed a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and consumption of alcohol in the state of Bombay.
Section 2(7): Defines “prohibition” and the scope of the Act, clarifying that it includes a ban on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Section 3: Provides for the imposition and enforcement of prohibition, detailing the powers of the state government to regulate and enforce the Act.
Section 4: Details penalties for violations of the prohibition, including fines and imprisonment.
Section 5: Grants the state government the authority to make rules and regulations for implementing the Act.
Section 6: Outlines the powers of police and other authorities to enforce the prohibition, including the seizure and destruction of prohibited substances.
Government of India Act, 1935
Section 297 (4) – “The provisions of this Act relating to the distribution of powers and functions between the Federal and Provincial Legislatures and Executives and the distribution of such powers and functions between the Provinces and the States and the functions of the Government of India under this Act shall be subject to the provisions of this section and shall have effect accordingly.”
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India – enlists three kinds of lists under which powers are divided between the Union and the State government – Union List, State List and Concurrent List.
JUDGEMENT
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of the State of Bombay and Others v. F.N. Balsara addressed the constitutionality of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 which imposed a ban on the trade of alcohol and its consumption. The core issues which the Supreme Court dealt with were raised by the petitioner whether the state acted outside its purview by passing such a law in the subjects enlisted under the union list. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the act and concluded that the act was inside the state’s authority and that the state has the due authority to pass such a law with the measure to ensure public health and welfare.
Regarding the fundamental rights, the court upheld that the act does not infringe the fundamental rights as the restrictions were imposed to serve a broader purpose for the public interest to achieve public welfare. The Supreme Court stated that all reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fundamental rights according to Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The court further declared that the act did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India since the provision was enacted according to the legal procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed that the state has the due authority to enact laws related to serving the broader public interest and strike a balance between individual rights and state regulation for the welfare of all its citizens in the country.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The pronouncement of judgement that such restrictions can be imposed on fundamental rights serves a larger purpose to the general public and the importance of such acts passed by the state legislature to achieve public good. The court concluded in its judgement the reasons and the measures highlighted by the state legislature while enacting such a law. It claims that fundamental rights are rigid yet also flexible enough to reasonable constraints according to the procedure established by law. It highlighted how state laws can limit the personal freedoms of individuals and the individual can move to the court whenever any question of law arises in the enactment of laws. The judgement underscores the importance of ensuring that fundamental rights are not violated while keeping in mind the personal freedoms of individuals aligning with constitutional principles.
REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred:
Prafull Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce, Khulna (AIR 1947, PC 60)
Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab (AIR 1949 FC 81)
Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons (AIR 1941 MADRAS 913)
Chitranjit Lal Chowdhari v. The Union of India and Ors., (1950 SCR 869)
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (AIR 1950 SUPREME COURT 124)
Important Statutes Referred:
Constitution of India, 1950
Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
Government of India Act, 1935