Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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