Scribd
Upload
49 views2 pages

Petiotioner: Ight To Privacy

The document discusses an individual's right to privacy regarding alcohol consumption within their home as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It summarizes the court's rejection of arguments in favor of prohibition. The court found that drinking alcohol responsibly is a fundamental right and that Article 47 does not mandate prohibition, leaving it up to each state. The court also rejected the argument that directive principles could override fundamental rights.

Uploaded by

Parikshit Shukla
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
49 views2 pages

Petiotioner: Ight To Privacy

The document discusses an individual's right to privacy regarding alcohol consumption within their home as protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It summarizes the court's rejection of arguments in favor of prohibition. The court found that drinking alcohol responsibly is a fundamental right and that Article 47 does not mandate prohibition, leaving it up to each state. The court also rejected the argument that directive principles could override fundamental rights.

Uploaded by

Parikshit Shukla
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

PETIOTIONER

A. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

It said that a citizen has a right to enjoy his liquor within the confines of his house in an orderly

fashion and that right would be a part of right of privacy, a fundamental right, under Article 21

of the Constitution and, any deprivation thereof would have to withstand the test of Articles 14

and 19 of the Constitution as well.

The court dealt with all the arguments given in favour of prohibition. I may notice one

argument by State. It submits no one has a right to eat poison. But, as the courts have held,

what one eats is his personal affair and a right under Article 21; but that surely does not include

right to eat poison. Liquor is not poison per se, it cannot be disputed. If what one eat is his right

surely, what one drinks has to be treated similarly, the bench observed.

It said that in its opinion, right to drink alcohol, like a responsible citizen, is a part of right to

privacy included under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not the case of the state nor any

material placed on record that drinking alcohol per se as a responsible citizen is bad or injurious

to health. It is abuse thereof that is injurious. On the plea of mere possibility of abuse by some

persons, the right of others cannot be abrogated.

Not obligatory upon state

Citing Article 47 of the Constitution, the court said, it does not mandate, in positive terms,

making it obligatory upon the State to impose prohibition. The expression State shall

endeavour clearly leaves it to the State to decide whether to impose prohibition or not if so,

when. If what was argued by the State, that it was a constitutional mandate to impose

prohibition, is correct, then, by now, almost after 65 years of the Constitution, the entire country

should have imposed prohibition, which has never happened. Can it be said that all the States

are in violation of the constitutional mandate?


Continuing further, the bench said, The answer is obviously no. The second argument,

canvassed by the State, was that once State decides to act pursuant to Article 47 of the

Constitution, then, no citizen can claim any right, much less right under Part-III of the

Constitution. If I have correctly understood the argument of the State, the submission would

be that the directive principles, if sought to be implemented, would override the fundamental

rights. The argument is noted only to be rejected.

You might also like