B KRISHNA BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B KRISHNA BHAT
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be "a public spirited individual". He further claims to be a person aggrieved and seeks to assail the constitutional validity of the State of Karnataka and the Union of India not promoting, enforcing and carrying out the policy of prohibition i. e. manufacturing, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs throughout the country - India - Bharat, and also assails the constitutional validity of sub-clause (b) of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise (Sales of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which came into force on 10/09/1989.
(2.)The petitioner refers to the Preamble to the Constitution which, according to him, explains the general purpose behind the general provisions of the Constitution. He refers to Mahatama Gandhi and his commitment to prohibition. According to the petitioner, manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs have become a stumbling block and a dangerous dragon to the progress and stability of the nation as a whole. The petitioner states that unless this dragon is completely destroyed the country could never think of achieving the objects of the Constitution and justice social, economic and political. People are flouting the laws of this country, therefore, the petitioner objects that the State should take upon itself the business of selling liquors. He has asserted that the State of Karnataka instead of bringing total prohibition in the State, has evinced interest in taking up the responsibility of selling liquors to the general public. Hence, it is bad and contrary to the Constitution, and he challenges the amendment which prescribes the licence for sale shall be issued to only such company owned or controlled by the State government as the State government may specify. According to the petitioner, such a rule is unconstitutional. He draws our attention to Article 47 of the Constitution of India which indicates directive principles.
(3.)In the aforesaid view of the matter he claims that this court should direct the Union of India and other State governments to enforce the policy of total prohibition throughout the country including the State of Karnataka and to impose restrictions on manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and to declare Rule 3 of these Rules as void and unconstitutional.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.