STATE OF BOMBAY AND ORS V F. N. BALSARA 

AIR 1951 BOM 210

1. INTRODUCTION

The landmark judgment of the State of Bombay V F.N. Balsara made a great contribution to the constitutional law and considered the application of the doctrine of pith and substance to ascertain the true nature and character of the legislation. The   petitioner approached the court pleading for the protection of his right to privacy , equality  and right to trade under article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution . 

2. FACTS OF THE CASE 

The facts along with the background can be understood under the following points: 

1. F.N. Balsara approached the Bombay Court praying for his right to keep Whisky, Brandy, Wine, Beer, with medicine U.D.Colon, eau-de-cologne, lavender water, medicated wines and medicinal preparations containing alcohol and use the same for the purpose of Import and export them within the Custom legal limits. 
2. The petitioner further prayed for his personal right requesting that the State government should not restrict him for such uses under the Prohibition Acts and the court shall pass such orders under the Specific Relief Act.
3. The case considered a very valid question whether keeping of alcohol misex medicine and toilet goods, and  dealing with the same can be prohibited under the Prohibition Act .
4. The petitioner also prayed for relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act against State and Prohibition Commissioner from enforcing the provision of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 on the basis that his right to posses the said article  was valid, and that no legal proceedings should be taken against him. 
5. The term liquor defined under the Bombay Prohibition Act,1949 is widely defined therefore such is beyond the power of the provincial legislation.
6. Being dissatisfied with the decree of the High Court both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

3. LEGAL ISSUES 

The legal issues that was considered by the High Court was – 

1. whether the provision of Bombay Prohibition Act are valid or not ?

The legal issues considered by the Supreme Court was – 

1. Whether there exists sufficient grounds to declare the whole Act to be invalid?
2. Whether the judgment passed the Bombay High Court upheld any specific provision of the Act?

4. DECISION 

The Supreme Court’s bench were of the following opinion:

1. Where the apex court passes any such Act by the State Legislature prohibiting or controlling the export of items mentioned under Entry 27 or 29 of the State list outside the territories of the State, such Act will be held illegal. But Act passed on the basis of Entry 31 of the list, section 297(1)(a) shall not be illegal.
2. The power of the State legislature provided by Entry 31 of the State List to prohibit selling , using and storing intoxicating alcohol is indisputable.
3. It was further held that Section 12 (c) of Bombay Prohibition Act , which effected the keeping alcohol-mixed medicines, and toilet goods and selling the same was invalid .
4. Section 37 provides exemption to the armed forces, land forces and water ships therefore such will not be regarded as illegal
5. The courts decree invalidating certain provisions of the Act shall not effect the validity of the Act therefore, Appeal No. 182 shall be substantially by the State of Bombay and Appeal No. 183 was dismissed. 

5. IMPACT

The impact made by the judgment can be summarised under the following points:

1. The court clarified the word import saying that it will not include sale or possession of the item imported to the country by the resident of India in the territory of the country of import 
2. The conflict between the provision of entry 31 of State List and entry of 19 of Union List was resolved.
3. The doctrine of Pith and Substance was referred as it was held that if any Act substantially falls within the powers expressly ascribed to the province of the legislature which enacted it, then it cannot be held invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches upon the matters assigned to another legislature.
4. The doctrine of original package was referred and court held that it shall apply to the imported foreign commodities and will be subject to inter-state commerce.
5. Section 297(1) of the Government of India Act only provides that if any law framed by the Provincial Legislature in pursuance of Entry 27 and 29 of List II affects the import into or export from the province, such shall be void. But this section has no application to the present case as the impugned Act has been made in pursuance of Entry 31 of List II.
6. The violation of article 14 was restored by considering the matters of section 39 , but exemptions were provided to the military and naval messes and canteens, warships and troop: ships.
7. The contention that the word ‘alcohol’ shall include “all liquids, toilet or medicinal preparations containing alcohol” and the restrictions imposed upon the ordinary use of such toilet or medicinal preparations are unreasonable and therefore void.
8. The court mentioned that only when the citizen uses the alcohol for doing anything against public interest which shall be prohibited but rest other essentials activity should be out of the purview of prohibition.

6. CONCLUSION 

The right to privacy of a person being recognised as a fundamental right in the case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), had given Indian citizen with wide scope of right and it was seen that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the state should not out reach the State interest . This case had up held protection of article 14, 19, and article 21 but after the judgment of Sythentics and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors the validity of this case is not considered . Thus, to conclude, that use and storage of alcohol is valid until such is hazardous to human and the State has the authority to collect taxes on their passion.