The Gujarat Prohibition Act of 1949, originally enacted as the Bombay Prohibition Act, is being scrutinized over seven decades after its enactment. The prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of liquor in the state as per this Act has been challenged in the Gujarat High Court for its apparent ‘manifest arbitrariness’ and supposed violation of the ‘right to privacy’.
History and Evolution of the Act
The idea to prohibit liquor stemmed from the Bombay Abkari Act of 1878 in the Province of Bombay. This Act addressed levying of duties on intoxicants among other provisions and had elements of prohibition via amendments made in 1939 and 1947. However, due to several shortcomings in the Bombay Abkari Act, the government decided to enforce complete prohibition through the Bombay Prohibition Act in 1949. The Supreme Court generally upheld this Act in 1951 barring a few sections.
In 1960, following the partition of the Bombay province into Maharashtra and Gujarat, Maharashtra saw continued amendment and liberalization in its liquor stance, especially in 1963, aiming to curtail illegal liquor business. Gujarat, on the other hand, adopted a rigid prohibition policy in 1960 but also simplified processes for foreign tourists and visitors to acquire liquor permits. In 2017, the Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Act was passed leading to up to ten years of imprisonment for manufacturing, purchase, sale, and transportation of liquor in the dry state.
Challenging Grounds of the Act
The Gujarat Prohibition Act came under challenge on two key grounds. Firstly, it allegedly violates an individual’s right to choose food and beverage, putting an unreasonable restriction on their decisional and bodily autonomy. Privacy has been declared as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in several verdicts since 2017. Secondly, the Act’s supposed ‘manifest arbitrariness’ was spotlighted during challenges to sections related to granting health permits and temporary permits to out-of-state tourists. It is argued that the state has created arbitrary divisions between who can and cannot drink, infringing upon the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Counter Arguments
Against these criticisms, defenders argue that alcohol consumption tends to escalate violence, especially against women and children behind closed doors. Furthermore, they believe that the state has the constitutional obligation and duty to protect the health and lives of its people. Also important to note is that prohibition was supported by Mahatma Gandhi.
Arguments Against Prohibition
On the flip side, prohibition leads to a loss of critical tax revenue for the government, potentially hampering public welfare schemes. The prohibition in Bihar introduced in April 2016 has been linked to excessive social, economic, and administrative costs, including straining the judicial system with over 2.14 lakh cases registered under the Act. Moreover, districts in Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal neighboring Bihar have reported increased liquor sales.
The Impact on Employment
The Indian Made Foreign Liquors (IMFL) industry contributes over 1 lakh crore in taxes annually and supports the livelihood of 35 lakh farming families. It also provides direct and indirect employment to a large number of workers in the industry.
Status of Prohibition in Other States
Prohibition laws are enforced in Bihar, Mizoram, Nagaland, and the union territory of Lakshadweep. These laws relate to alcohol being a subject in the State list under the seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution. Article 47 of the Constitution stipulates that the state should enforce rules leading to the prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs detrimental to health, except for medicinal purposes.
Looking Ahead
There is a need for informed and constructive dialogue around prohibition and freedom of choice, considering the implications on economy and employment. Policymakers should aim to frame laws encouraging responsible behavior. The drinking age should be made uniform across the country and no person below that should be permitted to buy alcohol. There should be stringent laws against public drunkenness, domestic violence under influence, and drunk driving. The government should allocate part of the revenue from alcohol for social education, de-addiction, and community support.
