Latest News
Back
Document:
Gujarat liquor prohibition case.
In the challenge to the prohibition on liquor earlier than the Gujarat High Court, Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi on Tuesday raised questions surrounding the right to privacy of residents vis-a-vis the right of the State to intervene with an equivalent (Peter Jagdish Nazareth v. the State of Gujarat). Linking the right to privacy with the residents' proper to devour and drink as in step with their choice, Joshi requested the Court, “What’s to save you the nation from getting into our houses and saying, 'no non-veg from tomorrow'?” The submission becomes made in the course of the listening to of a batch of petitions difficult the prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and intake of liquor withinside the State beneath the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
Counsel for diverse petitioners these days argued in opposition to the initial objections placed forth via way of means of the State concerning the maintainability of the petitions. Advocate General Kamal Trivedi raised an initial objection in the course of yesterday's listening to, arguing that the High Court can not take a seat down in enchantment over the Supreme Court’s selection in State of Bombay & Anr v. FN Balsara, in the course of which it upheld the vires of the 1949 Act.
Appearing for one a number of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore prolonged the argument that the provisions beneath neath venture withinside the present-day pleas are amended over time and are materially exceptional from what they have been in 1951.
Further, he submitted that the lowest for the venture on the time become legislative incompetence, while the grounds taken via way of means of the prevailing petitioners range substantially and relate to occur arbitrariness and the right to privacy. “Preliminary arguments made via way of means of the AG concerning bar at the High Court revisiting a Supreme Court judges do now no longer follow if there are material adjustments withinside the provisions being challenged," Thakore argued. Advocate Devan Parikh introduced that a judgment of the Supreme Court that comes to a decision at the competence of the legislature can nonetheless be challenged on the opposite grounds.
Thakore additionally argued that the State can not intrude in sports being carried on withinside the privateness of residents' houses.
“My number one submission is if I'd want to eat liquor in my home, the State does not have a proper to decrease my actions. The State can handiest decrease if I am inflicting public nuisance which includes drinking & driving,” he said. Joshi, acting for some other petitioner said that the Supreme Court had diagnosed an individual’s proper to be left by myself via way of means of manner of its judgment in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India.
“Many new rights are evolved and diagnosed via way of means of the Supreme Court that did not exist at the time of the primary venture. The Constitution and tights are continuously evolving, and the apex courtroom docket has diagnosed that a regulation that becomes as soon as held legitimate may be revisited primarily based totally at the extrade in a social context,” he said.
The Bench of deciding Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav will maintain listening to the subjects tomorrow, for the third day in the course of a row.
Document:
