Scribd
Upload
34 views2 pages

Case Art 13

The petitioner challenged certain provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act regarding the possession, consumption, import, export and purchase of alcohol-containing goods like whisky, brandy, and medicines as a violation of his right to practice his occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The High Court agreed that the definition of "liquor" under the Act was too broad and exceeded legislative powers. On appeal, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the entire Act could be invalidated, and the extent to which the High Court's judgment could be upheld regarding specific provisions. The Supreme Court declared provisions regarding alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods to be unconstitutional but upheld the rest of the Act, finding that an Act cannot

Uploaded by

Amulya Kaushik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
34 views2 pages

Case Art 13

The petitioner challenged certain provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act regarding the possession, consumption, import, export and purchase of alcohol-containing goods like whisky, brandy, and medicines as a violation of his right to practice his occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The High Court agreed that the definition of "liquor" under the Act was too broad and exceeded legislative powers. On appeal, the Supreme Court had to determine whether the entire Act could be invalidated, and the extent to which the High Court's judgment could be upheld regarding specific provisions. The Supreme Court declared provisions regarding alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods to be unconstitutional but upheld the rest of the Act, finding that an Act cannot

Uploaded by

Amulya Kaushik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

State of Bombay and Ors. Vs. F.N.

Balsara
Facts
Balsara, who was a citizen of India, had presented a petition in the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner prayed for two things:
 to allow him to exercise his right to possess, consume and use certain articles, namely,
whisky, brandy, wine, beer, medicated wine, eau-de-cologne, etc, and to import and
export across the Customs frontier and to purchase, possess consume and use any
stock of foreign liquor, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines and
medicinal preparations containing alcohol
 (2) to forbear from interfering with his right to possess these articles and to take no
steps or proceedings against him, penal or otherwise, under the Act.
The petitioner also requested for passing of a similar order under the specific relief act. It was
impugned that the said Act was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
19 (1) (g):  to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
In this case it has been considered as to whether under the Prohibition Act, the keeping of
alcohol mixed medicines and toilet good their selling and buying and using can be prohibited
or not. The question was whether that Act fell under Entry 31 of List II of the Government of
India Act, 1935
The High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the definition of “liquor” in the
Act was too wide and went beyond the power vested in the legislature to legislate with regard
to intoxicating liquors under item 31 of List II. That is when the State of Bombay went to the
Supreme Court of India in appeal.
The two important questions which the Supreme Court was called upon to decide in these
appeals were:
(1) whether there are sufficient grounds for declaring the whole Act to be invalid
(2) to what extent the judgment of the High Court can be upheld with regard to the specific
provisions of the Act which have been declared by it to be void.
Final Judgement
The Supreme Court declared illegal those provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act which
were regarding keeping alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods, selling and buying them
and also using them etc as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the rest of the
provisions, legal. It was also decided that an Act, by declaring certain provisions thereof as
illegal, cannot be wholly declared as illegal.
kameshwar prasad and others
R.M.D. CHAMARBAUGWALLA AND ANOTHER

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy