- (1.) Prof. Sher Singh the first petitioner, was a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and a Minister in the Punjab Government and the Government of India. He is now a member of the All India Prohibition Council and the President of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Haryana. He, along with two other representatives of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, has filed this writ petition in public interest.
(2.) The petitioners' grievance is that the Union and State Governments are not making sincere endeavour to introduce or enforce prohibition of consumption of alcoholic liquors and have thus failed to implement the directive principles enshrined in Article 47 of the Constitution. Though the Planning Commission had made tangible suggestions in this regard as early as 1956 and the Union Government also drew up a ten point programme for the implementation of Article 47 as early as 1976, all the States (except one) have bid goodbye to the policy of prohibition. Prohibition has even been scrapped by some of the States in which it was in force earlier. The States on an untenable and incorrect plea, that prohibition will entail loss to them of the huge excise revenues yielded by the liquor trade, are taking no steps to introduce or enforce prohibition. On the contrary, their policies are such as to encourage large scale production and excessive consumption of liquor. The deleterious and degrading effects of liquor, particularly on the poorer and weaker sections of society, it is submitted, have serious impact on the fundamental right of the citizens of India to lead a life of good health and dignity. The petitioners, who are believers in Gandhian principles, are deeply pained by the present state of affairs in the country in this respect. Relying on several decisions of this Court which have given directions to the State for implementation of some of the directive principles of the Constitution and interpreted the scope of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 in a very comprehensive manner, the petitioners seek the directions of this Court to the Union and States (a) to implement forthwith the mandate of Article 47; (b) to close down existing distilleries and deny any fresh licences for running distilleries; and (c) to issue guidelines for the implementation of the mandate in Article 47.
(3.) We have heard Sri R.K. Jain at some length as the petition is one which ventilates the grievances of a cross-section of the public on a matter which vitally affects the economy, health and character of our citizens, particularly those belonging to the weaker, poorer and illiterate sections of the population. Sri Jain submitted, in the course of his arguments, that he will not be pressing for any directions to close down existing distilleries or stop the vending of liquor. It was also not his objective that complete prohibition must be directed to be enforced throughout the country at once. His real grievance is that, far from attempting to introduce prohibition, at least in stages, the Governments of the day are pursuing policies that promote consumption of liquor. He, therefore, prayed that notices may be issued to the Union and all State Governments to show cause why they should not be directed to formulate and enforce policies that will implement, rather than thwart, the letter and spirit of Article 47.;