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 Gujarat.

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 prohibition laws.


Introduction
"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.'[1] 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.'[2] 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[3]. 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 restriction."[4]

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.[5] Overall upholding the validity of the Prohibition Laws.

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[6] and Joseph Shine[7], introduced the concept of 'manifest arbitrariness and the 'right to privacy' was established through the Puttaswamy case.[8]

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.[9] 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[10], 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.[11]

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 Court.

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.

A Muslim 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.[12] 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 citizens.'[13]

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 the states.

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[14] 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 litigation.

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 constitutionally valid.

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 sovereignty?

It was the Bombay Abkari Act that introduced a system of distilleries, encouraged new drinking practices and provided opportunities for revenue evasion[15]. 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[16] 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 Muslims.

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.[17] 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.[18]

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.'[19] The BPA declared that the possession, consumption, manufacturing, bottling, and export of liquor would be non-bailable offences.[20]

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.[21] Any disorderly or drunk behaviour on the street was punishable.[22] Encouraging or inciting any member of the public to indulge in drinking was criminalized.[23]

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"[24]

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. [25] 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."[26]

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[27] 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 Bombay[28] was a turning point in the struggle for temperance in India. It elaborately documented all the procedural drawbacks of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

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.'[29] 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 of speech.

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.

If 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."[30] 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.

The 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.

He 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 the BPA.

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."[31] The inclusion of Prohibition played a very important role in uniting Indians.

In a 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. "[32]

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[33], 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 The majority, 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 unconstitutional.

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 and expression.

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.[34] "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.

Conclusion
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.[35] The emergence of new grounds in this particular issue should not be a ground of reconsideration to be made by the High Court."

End-Notes:

1. The Hindu, Prohibition will improve the skills of the youth: G.K. Mani, The Hindu (Aug. 19, 2021, 10:10 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/prohibition-will-improve-skills-of-youth-gk-mani/article35988253.ece
2. 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/
3. AIR 1951 SC 318.
4. Dr JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 210 (2019)
5. Pandey, supra note 3, at 500.
6. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
7. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898.
8. S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
9. INDIA CONST. art. 141.
10. (1984) 1 GLR 538 GJ
11. 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
12. Mohammed Yasin v. Town Area Committees AIR 1952 SC 115.
13. Rohit De, A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Indian Republic, pg 33, (2018).
14. AIR 1955 SC 123.
15. Indra Munshi Saldanha, On Drinking and Drunkenness: History of Liquor in Colonial India, Jstor, (Aug. 20, 2021, 11:52 PM), https://www.jstor.org/stable/4403218?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A58ba11a467631faf6fa4490a11702627&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
16. AIR 1943 Bom 318
17. De, supra note 11, at 43.
18. B.G. Kher, Constituent Assembly Debates, November 24, 1948.
19. Decision on Total Prohibition in Bombay Reaffirmed, Times of India, February 20, 1949.
20. S.65, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
21. S. 84, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
22. S.85, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
23. S. 23, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
24. S. 123, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
25. S.139, Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
26. Morarji Desai, 'A word to the Prohibition Workers,' in New Lives for Old(Bombay Provincial Prohibition Board 1948), 127
27. Supra note 11
28. Supra note 2
29. De, supra note 11, at 48
30. F.N. Balsara v. State of Bombay and M.D. Bhanusali, Miscellaneous Applications 139, 1950, Bombay High Court, SCRR
31. Kazi Syed Karimuddin, Constituent Assembly Debates, November 19, 1949
32. De, supra note 11, at 41
33. AIR 1963 SC 1295
34. 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
35. Article 141

Written By: Anam Khan, 4th-year student at Hidayatullah National Law University.