The potential for sin is far greater than that of the medicinal properties of
alcohol. There has been a long battle for nationalizing temperance. However, the
social evil of alcohol is deep-rooted within civilizations. It is like a
Faustian bargain- where morals and health are traded for revenue and individual
interests. This paper seeks to analyse the validity of the recent judgment
passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajeev Piyush Patel v. State of
The paper is divided into four parts. The first part discusses the historical
background of alcohol prohibition through different ages and across countries.
How the policy failed in the United States and was constitutionalized in India.
The second part of the paper analyses the constitutional validity of
Prohibition, the judgement passed 71 years ago in the case of F.N Balsara and
various drawbacks in the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The third part deals with
the novel concept of 'right to privacy and to what extent should the courts be
allowed to interfere in the personal life of citizens. Lastly, the analysis of
the recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court upholding the provisions of the
"Pattali Makkal Katchi Legislative Party leader G.K. Mani suggested to the
Assembly on 18th August 2021, that complete Prohibition on liquor 'would improve
the skills of youth and develop human resources in Tamil Nadu.' The beginning
of the twentieth century witnessed alcohol becoming a very versatile industrial
and political product.
Reminiscent to the world getting divided into two power
blocs post the Second World War (1939-45) i.e the capitalist United States and
the communist Soviet Union, the issues surrounding temperance also divided
people into two groups. Prohibitionists were of the opinion that there should be
a complete ban on liquor for the betterment of mankind. Whereas, the other side
suggested responsible drinking.
The birth of the Prohibition laws dates back to the 1920s. It began as a battle
for public health, moral and religious revival in the United States. American
President Herbert Hoover describes the 18th Amendment to the U.S Constitution,
which banned the 'manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquor'
as a 'great social and economic experiment.' However, owing to the increase
in the number of cases of bootlegging and speakeasy, three states voted in
favour of repeal. The unique 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution
then went on to become the only amendment to repeal a prior one, i.e the 18th.
Of all the multi-dimensional uses of alcohol, the debate surrounding temperance
became a very vital political issue in the Gandhian regeneration of India. In a
recent event, a batch of petitioners approached the Gujarat High Court to
challenge the Prohibition on the 'manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor'
imposed in the state through the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioners-
Rajeev Piyush Patel, Milind Damodar Nene and Niharika Abhay Joshi, challenged
the Prohibition laws on grounds of 'manifest arbitrariness and a violation of
Right to Privacy
Although the Prohibition laws were enacted with a vision to safeguard the
citizens from a feckless lifestyle associated with drinking and debauchery,
after the advancement of individual rights in the postcolonial era, it now
raises certain fundamental questions on its constitutional validity.
Nearly seven decades ago, a landmark judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court
in the case of Fram Nusserwanji Balsara v. State of Bombay
. It held "a
restriction which is imposed for securing the objects and is laid down in the
Directive Principles of State Policy may be regarded as a reasonable
The apex court giving importance to Article 47 directed the
state to bring about Prohibition on the consumption of intoxicating drinks
except for medical purposes. Overall upholding the validity of the
However, recent developments in the Supreme Court have framed two new grounds on
which the validity of Prohibition can be challenged. The cases of Shayara
Bano and Joseph Shine, introduced the concept of 'manifest arbitrariness
and the 'right to privacy' was established through the Puttaswamy case.
On having additional grounds, can the High Court sit in an appeal over a
judgment already passed by the Supreme Court? The answer is no. According to
Article 141 of the Constitution, laws declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts. When a law has already been passed by the Supreme
Court, the emergence of new grounds cannot be the basis of challenging the same
law before the High Court.
While reviewing the petition, Gujarat High Court cited the case of Sarjubhaiya
Mathurbhaiya Kahar v. Deputy Commissioner Of Police
, where the Court refused
to relook into the validity of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
on the ground that a new ground for challenge emerged subsequently.
On similar lines, while revisiting the liquor ban through the ambit of new
concepts of 'manifest arbitrariness' and 'right to privacy' it was held that
there is no scope for further interference in the Prohibition laws because it is
beyond the powers of the High Court to redo a judgment delivered by the Supreme
The paper seeks to critically analyse the constitutional validity of laws on
liquor prohibition under the new concepts of 'manifest arbitrariness' and 'right
to privacy', subsequently developed by the Supreme Court. It is divided into
four parts- starting with an introduction to the enactment of Prohibition laws
for religious revivalism in the United States in the 1820s, and the relevance of
the concept of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Gandhian
regeneration of India. It briefly discusses the challenges in the postcolonial
era and elaborates its historical importance to nationalism.
Next, the paper
attempts to discuss the constitutional validity of the restrictions imposed and
the need for temperance. The second part states various instances of procedural
drawbacks of the liquor ban. The third part will largely try to rethink and
reconsider the ban on the basics of new concepts developed by the Apex Court
post-2017. Lastly, the author attempts to discuss the success of the recent
judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court upholding the validity of the ban and
its social significance.
Towards the Faustian bargain: Prohibition and Nationalism
The rise and fall of the British empire in India is a colossal event of great
political, economical and social importance. In an attempt to undo nearly twenty
decades of colonial oppression, the adoption of the Constitution of India was a
revolutionary change in the structure of daily living of the citizens.
vegetable vendor, Mohammed Yasin hailing from the small town of Jalalabad, was
among one of the early citizens to understand and ascertain his fundamental
rights. He stood against the arbitrary bylaws of the administration that
granted a monopoly of trade to a Hindu merchant. Why should Yasin's struggle be
relevant to a study on Prohibition laws? It is because his constitutional
adventure emphasizes very important aspects of the law. His struggle outlines
the dynamic nature of law and the supremacy of the Constitution.
The use of alcohol has been a force of destruction in society. When a wave of
religious revivalism spread across the United States of America in the 1820s,
there was an automatic increase in the call for temperance. Subsequently, the
18th Amendment banning the 'manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor' was
ratified. However, while the country was battling against the Great Depression
in 1932, creating jobs by legalizing liquor became an undeniable appeal. Seizing
this massive political opportunity Roosevelt contested the elections by calling
for a repeal of Prohibition. His victory ultimately led to the 21st Amendment
that repealed the 18th.
According to Islamic scriptures, the consumption of alcohol is a forbidden
practice. It is because Prophet Mohammed who is known to have revealed the words
of God had stated that although alcohol may have certain medicinal properties,
the potential for sin is much greater than its benefits. Intoxicants have been
labelled as 'abominations of Satan's handiwork.'
The Indian scenario on liquor Prohibition varies across the states. Bihar,
Gujarat, Mizoram and Nagaland have prohibited the use of alcohol whereas all
other states and union territories permit the same. Nonetheless, the
Constitution through the Directive Principles of State Policy does prohibit the
use of intoxicating drinks and drugs.
Article 47 states "the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the
consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs
which are injurious to health."
It was upon the will of the States to implement Article 47. The Directive
Principles of State Policy are crucial for the governance of the country but
they are non-justiciable rights. Article 37 states "The provisions contained in
this part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid
down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall
be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws." Therefore,
the 'Prohibition laws in Bombay and in other provinces were among the earliest
attempts by the postcolonial states to regulate the everyday life of
The central question to temperance has been that of individual freedom. To what
extent should the courts be given the powers to decide what the citizens must
eat or drink? Owing to the social perils involved, is it valid for the 'right to
drink' to be an exception? The act of drinking must be governed by social and
moral codes because individual desires are likely to differ across the country.
Unfortunately, the failure of Prohibition was predicted at an early stage
because there was a wide gap between the will of the masses and the command of
All the evidence stands in favour of the laws on temperance. It was in the year
1960, that Bombay split into two states- Gujarat and Maharashtra based on
linguistic ideas. Before this split, the State actively implemented the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949 banning the 'manufacture, consumption and sale of liquor
without a permit'. A large number of people were convicted under the Bombay
Prohibition Act. However, it was the particular case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka
v. State of Bombay
 which gained large-scale popularity.
B.K Pesikaka was a government servant. His jeep is said to have knocked down
three members of a family. The constable on duty reported that Pesikaka's breath
smelled of alcohol and charges were framed according to the provisions of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and BPA 1949.
This case is commonly referred to as the The Case of the Constable's Nose
. During the proceeding of this case, a neighbourhood watchman testified that the jeep was at ordinary speed. The
medical tests also reported normal. In a series of draconian turn of events, the
Bombay High Court acquitted him of all the charges under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 but convicted him under the BPA 1949. He was one of the four hundred
thousand people to have been convicted under the Act.
There were two significant aspects of the case:
Firstly, it was a very well documented example of how the Prohibition laws were
framed to affect the routine life of citizens. Secondly, the constitutional
structure of this case was set to overturn the Prohibition regime. This case
also discusses the three basic challenges surrounding the implementation of BPA-
substantive constitutional challenge, procedural challenge and self-conscious
The production and sale of alcohol in the colonial years were a
great source of revenue and were therefore regulated by the Bombay Abkari Act
1878. In the greed for increased profits, the Bombay government under the Abkari
Act 1878, had accepted a Faustian bargain to protect their wealth in exchange
for debauchery and other social evils.
In complete contrast, the postcolonial Gandhian regeneration of India saw attempts for national Prohibition. In Madras,
despite an annual loss of approximately 170 million rupees, Prohibition was
imposed. Law being a dynamic concept, with time witnessed certain provisions
under the Prohibition laws being struck down while the major portions were held
Postcolonial Sovereignty: a discipline for drinking
The gist of the offence in the Pesikaka case
was the consumption of alcohol
without a permit. The state of drunkenness and incapability of the person
consuming alcohol was not relevant. Such incidents made it clear that the
success of Prohibition laws was a goal for the postcolonial states. However, the
formulation of subsequent public and private interests transformed the debate
over Prohibition in ways that the framers of the Constitution could not have
anticipated. Why was disciplined drinking an important clause for postcolonial
It was the Bombay Abkari Act that introduced a system of distilleries,
encouraged new drinking practices and provided opportunities for revenue
evasion. The colonial marauders had devised it as a system for the
government to hold a monopoly over the liquor industry. Owing to its short
shelf-life, toddy (made from the sap of palm trees), a very popular form of
liquor, had been subjected to prohibitive taxes.
The Mhowra Act, 1892 was
enacted with the purpose of banning the sale of mhowra flowers because it was
used by the tribal population for brewing alcohol. Despite enacting various Acts
and statutes against drinking, the practices remained the same. On the contrary,
the Prohibition laws led to an increase in the number of convicts. The focus
shifted from creating moral reforms to breaking the chain of a great source of
revenue for the British government.
A quintessential case was that of Pestonji
Barjorji v. Murlidhar Sidhgopal Avasti
 wherein his license for distilling
spirits had expired. When the police found copper vessels used for distillation
in his possession he was charged under the Abkari Act. Pestonji was among many
others who were arrested under the Abkari Act to protect British revenue.
The alcoholic policy in postcolonial India completely changed. Determining
demands for social reforms overpowered the revenue needs. Alcoholic beverages
were labelled as the root cause of social evils. The Indian temperance movement
stressed the historical fact that drinking was alien to the Indian subcontinent.
The striking difference between Indian and British liberalism was based on
temperance. The former constituted temperance as the primary feature of
liberalism whereas, the latter criticized it. It is difficult to prove the alienness of alcohol empirically but it was clear that the colonial era
transformed alcoholic practices in India. Temperance was also pivotal to
postcolonial sovereignty in order to bridge a platform between Hindus and
In his very first speech at the Constituent Assembly, Hemchandra Khandekar
quoted Harold Laski's Liberty in the Modern State to argue that "Prohibition
militates against the development of personality, which must be the goal of
Indian citizens." According to him, real development comes without suppression
and taboos. His attempts revolved around humanizing drinkers and trying to
present drinking as a social practice.
He emphasized that not all of the
drinkers were to turn into drunkards and pose a threat to society. He also
mentioned in these arguments that for Christians and Parsis drinking was a part
of their social life. If Christians and Jews were given exceptions for
sacramental wine then so should the tribes in Bombay and other parts of the
country. According to him, Indian temperance laws were reproducing caste norms.
B.G. Kher set aside these concerns by stating that "it is too late in the day to
argue that the use of intoxicating drinks does not affect the moral sense of the
person using them." Kher was of the opinion that drinking just like committing
suicide cannot be a matter of individual liberty.
Bombay's first Prohibition minister, LM Patil clearly outlined that "advocates
of personal liberty forget that no state can allow civil liberty to ruin
itself." After Independence, states began their experiments with Prohibition.
Initially, Bombay and Madras were the only two states to implement a prohibition
on the use of liquor. Basically, Prohibition laws were an attempt to shape
customs and morals.
The Bombay Prohibition Act, of 1949 expanded state power and
responsibility. Under the Act, no person should 'produce, manufacture, possess,
export, import, transport, buy, sell, consume, or use liquor except under a
permit issued by the government.' The BPA declared that the possession,
consumption, manufacturing, bottling, and export of liquor would be non-bailable
Any person opening or patronizing a drinking house would be fined
and if anyone was found in the drinking, it would be presumed that they were
drinking. Any disorderly or drunk behaviour on the street was
punishable. Encouraging or inciting any member of the public to indulge in
drinking was criminalized.
In order to implement the Act and discipline drinking, BPA gave a wide range of
powers to the police and Prohibition officers. All police and Prohibition
officers were granted the power to "enter at any time, any warehouse, shop,
house, building, vessel, vehicle or an enclosed place in which they have reason
to believe that intoxicants are kept or being used"
They could open packages
and confiscate goods only if they suspected it contained illicit liquor.
Warrants were not required- either for search or arrests. A person could be
detained without trial and his movement restricted on committing an offence
under BPA.  Police raids would take place at any place and at any time.
Policing Prohibition through the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 led to two
different views of drinkers.
Firstly, the group of people who were incapable of making an informed decision.
This group included tribal members. Morarji Desai explained that it was
impossible for the lower classes to give up alcohol. He testified that a person
in Surat told him, "How nice would it be if liquor shops were closed off once
and for all. Every time we make up our mind to abstain from drinking and happen
to cross a liquor shop, the temptation is too great to resist."
Secondly, are a group of those citizens who, being well aware that the
government sustained the loss of revenue, continued to damage themselves as well
as the society. Ultimately it was a handful of people who wanted to continue to
drink. These people had to be protected against themselves.
Procedural drawbacks of Liquor Ban
Mohammed Yasin's case stands relevant while understanding the procedural
drawbacks that the Prohibition laws faced. Akin to Yasin, citizens had started
approaching the courts of justice to ascertain their fundamental rights. It was
not possible for the administration to pass arbitrary laws on the pretext of the
colonial age. Law was developing and individual rights were being safeguarded.
The Constitution came into effect on 26th January 1950 and Fram Nusserwanji
Balsara approached the High Court of Bombay with his petition consisting of the
writ of mandamus on 13th April 1950. The case of F. N . Balsara v. State of
 was a turning point in the struggle for temperance in India. It
elaborately documented all the procedural drawbacks of the Bombay Prohibition
The legal challenges against Prohibition in Bombay were not a novelty at the
time Balsara approached the court. His contentions enveloped the fundamental
rights guaranteed by the newly enforced Constitution. He was of the opinion that
the BPA violated his freedom of speech and right to equal treatment. Moreover,
the Constitution itself empowered the citizens through provisions like Article
226 under which a person may directly approach the High Court in case of
violation of his fundamental rights.
The basis of his writ of mandamus was to ask the government and prohibition
commissioner to allow him to 'possess, consume, or otherwise use prohibited
items.' When the court refused to recognize his rights, he argued there
should not be any exceptions to the right to equality. If soldiers and
foreigners were allowed to consume alcohol, so should he. He even emphasised
that the sections criminalizing inciting someone to drink was against freedom
And lastly, he argued that the new federal division of power must
not give any special powers to the province to interfere with forms of trade. He
hoped for the entire piece of legislation to be held void and unconstitutional.
However, the court clearly stated that there was no question of striking down
the entire legislation because the Constitution made it clear through Article 47
that drinking would be regulated by the states. Nonetheless, the court was ready
to apply the doctrine of severability, sieving out sections that were ultra vires but preserving the overall structure of the Act.
The shortcomings of the BPA are enumerated below:
Articles of everyday use that contained alcohol but were not ordinarily used
like medicines could not be forbidden under the Act. The state could not
prohibit their legitimate use because it would amount to a violation of Article
19. Restrictions on medicines and cosmetics were also not possible because it
would hamper the goal of achieving public health and social welfare.
incitement and encouragement were criminalized it would violate the basic
principle of freedom of speech under Article 19. Balsara had claimed in his
petition, "that the system of granting permits under the act resulted in
discrimination of one citizen from another and a citizen from a noncitizen."
The Bombay High Court seriously considered his claims of the permit system
denying the right to equality under the Constitution.
The BPA granted an arbitrary exemption to the army officers. When India is not a
military state, then on what grounds should the army officers be an exemption
from the BPA. Also, a similar responsibility of protecting the citizens is
conferred on the police officers but they do not receive any exemptions.
exemption of the army resulted in an interesting argument between Chief Justice Faizal
Ali and the counsel for petitioner:
Noshirwan P. Engineer. Chief Justice
justified the exemption by stating that the army had the strenuous task of
fighting, to which the counsel for petitioner asked him if the farmer who worked
in waist-deep water for hours was not strenuous?
Why must the army be allowed
to do something which is opposed by the general public in the name of welfare?"
The Court finally had to invalidate certain provisions of the BPA, emphasizing
the dynamic nature of law and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
A month after the landmark Balsara judgement, Behram Pesikaka, whose narrative
has been discussed earlier in this paper was arrested merely on the ground of
smelling of alcohol. Although he contended he had not consumed prohibited
alcohol, according to the constable on duty, Pesikaka smelled of alcohol.
argued that it was BG Phos and not prohibited alcohol that he had consumed.
Pesikaka was acquitted by the magistrate. It was incorrect on the part of the
court to base his conviction only on a policeman's statement. Pesikaka was one
among forty thousand people to have been subjected to arbitrary procedures of
Constitutional Validity of Prohibition
The original draft presented by Dr B.R. Ambedkar before the Constituent Assembly
did not have any provision for prohibition. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's
lifelong struggle for temperance and considering the American precedent for
incorporating Prohibition, Kazi Syed Karimuddin warned the assembly that
rejecting Prohibition would be "rejection of wishes of Mahatma Gandhi." The
inclusion of Prohibition played a very important role in uniting Indians.
very powerful speech, Mahavir Tyagi lamented on the failure of the Constitution
to incorporate Gandhi,
"If we cannot even accommodate the idea of Prohibition in our Constitution, then
what else have we been sent here for? We have been talking of revolutions� but
if we cannot even have this small reform in our Constitution, the book will not
be even worth touching with a pair of tongs. I submit that if the Draft
Constitution does not contain Prohibition, it does not contain Gandhi, because
where there is liquor, Gandhi cannot be. "
The Prohibitionists in India were aware of the complete failure of this policy
in the United States. But it was impossible to jump over Gandhi's wishes in
post-colonial India. Therefore, Prohibition was granted a very safe and
non-controversial place under Article 47 i.e the Directive Principles Of State
Policy. It was the state's prerogative to implement Prohibition. The initial
days after enactment saw a number of cases emerging in the courts either for
violation of the Act or for questioning the validity.
Applying the doctrine of
severability, the Balsara judgment repealed certain provisions of the BPA but
overall held it to be constitutionally valid. Years later new concepts of right
to privacy and 'manifest arbitrariness' have emerged through the judgments of
the Supreme Court. Can the High Court sit in an appeal to reconsider the laws on
the emergence of new grounds in a judgment already passed by the Supreme Court?
Impact of Right to Privacy on Prohibition Laws
"The first case to lay down the basics of right to privacy in India, was the
case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
, where a seven-judge bench of
the Supreme Court was required to check the constitutionality of certain police
regulations which allowed police to do domiciliary visit and surveillance of
persons with a criminal record.
In this case, the petitioner challenges the
constitutionality of such provisions on the ground that they violated his
fundamental right to privacy under clause Personal Liberty
of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. In this particular case majority of the judges
decline to interpret Article 21 to include within its ambit the right the
privacy, part of the majority expressed
"The right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution, and
therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual is merely a
manner in which privacy is invaded and is not an infringement of a fundamental
right guaranteed in Part III."
But they did recognize it as a common law right to enjoy the liberty of their
houses and approved an old age saying man's home was his castle
therefore, understood the term 'personal liberty in Article 21 in the context of
age-old principles from common law while holding domiciliary visits to be
Two of the judges of the seven-judge bench, however, saw the
right to privacy as a part of Article 21, marking an early recognition of
privacy as a fundamental right. Justice Subba Rao held "It is true our
Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental
right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.
On 24th August 2017, a 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous
verdict in the Puttaswamy case
. They affirmed that the Constitution of India
guarantees each individual a fundamental right to privacy. Under this concept,
should citizens have the right to drink?
Analysing recent judgment by Gujarat High Court
Earlier this year petitions have approached Gujarat high court demanding that
laws on liquor prohibition should be relaxed. It should allow citizens to drink
behind closed doors. Petitioners argued that the existing laws violate the
Right to Privacy
and constitutional rights of equality and freedom of speech
Counsel for the petitioner, Mihir Joshi raised questions surrounding the right
to privacy of citizens vis-a-vis the right of the State to interfere with the
same. "What's to stop the state from coming into our homes and saying, 'no
non-veg from tomorrow'?" After hearing all the arguments by the petitioners, the
High Court of Gujarat once again upheld the validity of the prohibition laws.
Undoubtedly, Right to Privacy is one of the most important aspects of the
Indian Constitution. However, it is important to draw a line between individual
interests and the welfare of society. The Islamic scriptures rightly point out
that although alcohol may have certain medical properties, the evils of alcohol
consumption are far greater. And even fundamental aspects of the Constitution
need to have reasonable restrictions.
Reasonable restrictions are important and
citizens cannot be granted an absolute Right to Privacy.
The day is not far
when claims for suicide to fall under the right to privacy will be made. The
history of alcohol has proved it to be a social evil and therefore, owing to the
larger interest of individual growth, the right to privacy should not be a
ground for repealing or providing relaxation to the prohibition laws.
The Indian Constitution is known to be a unique constitution in many ways. It is
transformative yet strongly upholds the basic structure. The age-old debate
surrounding alcohol prohibition finds its place in the religious scriptures as
well. Empirical evidence proves that consumption of alcohol results in an
increase in the rate of crime. Beyond the moral aspect, drinking hinders a
person's analytical thinking.
Is it correct to give into the Faustian bargain of
social welfare against the little revenue that the sale of alcohol earns?
Although subsequent judgments by the Supreme Court emphasise 'right to privacy,
that cannot be a reasonable ground to repeal prohibition laws in Gandhi's
regeneration of India. If it is not subjected to limitations, individuals may
begin to quote everything under 'right-to-privacy.' In order to keep evils in
check, it is correct to apply reasonable restrictions.
Moreover, the decision
passed by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. The emergence of new
grounds in this particular issue should not be a ground of reconsideration to be
made by the High Court."
Written By: Anam Khan,
- The Hindu, Prohibition will improve the skills of the youth: G.K. Mani,
The Hindu (Aug. 19, 2021, 10:10 PM),
- Neil Wynn, Prohibition Facts: A Guide to the US Prohibition Era, History
Extra, (Aug 22, 2021, 11:20 AM), https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/prohibition-history-facts-what-when-start-why-passed-america-ban-alcohol/
- AIR 1951 SC 318.
- Dr JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 210 (2019)
- Pandey, supra note 3, at 500.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
- Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898.
- S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- INDIA CONST. art. 141.
- (1984) 1 GLR 538 GJ
- Akshita Saxena, Gujarat Liquor Prohibition Challenged in High Court
Invoking, 'Right to Privacy', Livelaw, (Aug. 19, 2021, 2:14 PM), http://www.livelaw.in.elibraryhnlu.remotexs.in/top-stories/gujarat-liquor-prohibition-challenged-in-high-court-invoking-right-to-privacy-176041
- Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committees AIR 1952 SC 115.
- Rohit De, A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Indian Republic,
pg 33, (2018).
- AIR 1955 SC 123.
- Indra Munshi Saldanha, On Drinking and Drunkenness: History of Liquor in
Colonial India, Jstor, (Aug. 20, 2021, 11:52 PM),
- AIR 1943 Bom 318
- De, supra note 11, at 43.
- B.G. Kher, Constituent Assembly Debates, November 24, 1948.
- Decision on Total Prohibition in Bombay Reaffirmed, Times of India,
February 20, 1949.
- S.65, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
- S. 84, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
- S.85, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
- S. 23, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
- S. 123, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
- S.139, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
- Morarji Desai, 'A word to the Prohibition Workers,' in New Lives for
Old(Bombay Provincial Prohibition Board 1948), 127
- Supra note 11
- Supra note 2
- De, supra note 11, at 48
- F.N. Balsara v. State of Bombay and M.D. Bhanusali, Miscellaneous
Applications 139, 1950, Bombay High Court, SCRR
- Kazi Syed Karimuddin, Constituent Assembly Debates, November 19, 1949
- De, supra note 11, at 41
- AIR 1963 SC 1295
- Shagun Suryam, Gujarat High Court hears plea challenging the prohibition
of liquor, Bar and Bench, (Aug. 21, 2021, 5:32 PM), https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/gujarat-high-court-liquor-prohibition-challenge-mihir-joshi
- Article 141
4th-year student at Hidayatullah National Law
Please Drop Your Comments