http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 29  

PETITIONER: P. N. KAUSHAL ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1978

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. DESAI, D.A. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1978 AIR 1457            1979 SCR  (1) 122  1978 SCC  (3) 558  CITATOR INFO :  R          1978 SC1476  (3)  R          1978 SC1484  (4)  RF         1979 SC 321  (9)  R          1979 SC1550  (17,18)  R          1979 SC1803  (12)  RF         1990 SC1927  (45,51,60)  RF         1992 SC1256  (14)

ACT:      Punjab Excise  Act 1  of  1914,  Section  59(f)(v)  and Punjab  Liquor  Licence  Rules  1956-Rule  37-Constitutional Validity of-Business  in intoxicants-  State if has power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity relating thereto.      Constitution of India. 1950-Part IV of the Constitution must enter  the soul  of Part  III and  the laws made by the State-Articles 38  and 47-Progressive  implementation of the policy of prohibition.

HEADNOTE:      The  Punjab  Excise  Act  1914  contemplates  grant  of licences for trading in (Indian) foreign and country liquor. Section 59(f)  (v) of the Act provides for the fixing of the days during  which any  licensed premises  may or may not be kept open  for sale  of  liquor  and  the  closure  of  such premises on special occasions. The conditions of the licence includes restrictions  of various types including obligation not to sell liquor on certain days and during certain hours. Rule 37(a)  as it originally stood prohibited sale of liquor on Tuesdays  upto 2  p.m. and  also on  tho 7th day of every month. This  rule was  amended by  a notification whereby in place of  "Tuesdays upto 2 p.m. plus the 7th of every month" "Tuesday and  Friday in  every week", was substituted as the days when  liquor vending was prohibited. "Note" appended to the said  rule exempted  tourist bungalows  and. rest-houses run by  the Department  of tho  State  Government  from  the operation of  the condition  regarding  closure.  Consequent upon the  change of  days, the  . Licence  fee payable  by a vendor was  reduced from  Rs. 12,000/-  to Rs.  10,000/-  to compensate  for  the  marginal  loss  caused  by  two  days’ closure.      The petitioners  who were licensed vendors of liquor in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 29  

the  State   challenged  the  constitutionality  of  section 59(f)(v) and the vires of Rule 37 on the ground that section 59(f)(v)  vested   an  unguided,   uncanalised,  vague   and vagarious power  in the  Financial Commissioner  to fix  the days or  number of days and hours or number of hours without laying  down   any  guidelines,  indicators  or  controlling points.      The State on the other hand contended that the subject- matter of  the legislation  being  a  deleterious  substance (liquor),  requiring   restrictions  in   the  direction  of moderation in consumption, regulation regarding the days and hours of  sale and appropriateness in the matter of location of the places of sale, reasonableness and arbitrariness must be tested  on the  touchstone of  principled pragmatism  and living realism,      Dismissing the writ petitions, ^      HELD: (a)  Section 59(f)(v)  of the  Punjab Excise  Act 1914 is valid. [158 C] 123      (b) The  regulation of  the  number  of  days  and  the duration of  the hours  when supply  of alcohol by licensees shall be  stopped is quite reasonable whether it be two days in a week or more. [158D]      (c) The exercise of the power to regulate, including to direct closure  for some  days every  week, being reasonable and calculated  to produce  temperance  and  promote  social welfare, cannot  be invalidated on the imaginary possibility of misuse.  The test of the reasonableness of a provision is not the theoretical possibility of tyranny. [158E]      (d)  There  is  enough  guideline  in  the  scheme  and provisions of  the Punjab  Excise Act to govern the exercise of the power under sections 58 and 59. [158E]      (1) (a)  The  Constitutional  test  of  reasonableness, built into  Article  IV  and  of  arbitrariness  implied  in Article  14   has  a   relativist  touch.   The  degree   of constitutional restriction  and the  strategy of  meaningful enforcement  will   naturally  depend  on  the  Third  World setting, the  ethos of  our people, the economic compulsions of today and of human tomorrow. While scanning the rationale of an  Indian temperance  measure  it  would  be  useful  to remember the  universal evil in alcohol and the particularly pernicious consequences of the drink evil in India. Societal realities shape social justice. [133H, 134A-B]      (b) "We,  the people  of India" have enacted Article 47 and "we  the Justices  of India"  cannot ’lure  it  back  to cancel half  a life’  or ’wash  out a  word of it especially when progressive implementation of the policy of prohibition is, by Articles 38 and 47, made fundamental to the country’s governance. [138H]      (c) The  Constitution is the property of the people and the court’s  know-how is  to apply  the Constitution  not to assess it.  In the  process of interpretation Part IV of the Constitution  must   enter  the  soul  of  Part  m  and  the laws.[138H, 139A]      State of  Kerala &  Others v.  N. M.  Thomas  &  Others [1976] 1 S.C.R. 906 referred to.      (d) Even  restrictions under  Article 19 may, depending on  situations   be  pushed  to  the  point  of  prohibition consistently with  reasonableness. While the police power as developed in  the American  Jurisprudence and Constitutional law.  may   not  be   applicable  in  terms  to  the  Indian Constitutional law,  there is  much that  is common  between that doctrine  and the reasonableness doctrine under Article 19 of  the  Indian  Constitution.  There  is  also  a  close

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 29  

similarity in judicial thinking on the subject. [148F, G]      South Western  Law Journal-Annual  Survey of  Texas Law Vol. 30 No. 1. Survey 1976 pp. 725-26.      Idaho  Law  Review  Vol.  7  1970  p.  131,  Fatehchand Himmatlal  v.  Maharashtra  [1977]  2  SCR  828  at  839-848 referred to.      (e) The  statutory scheme  of the  Act  is  not  merely fiscal but  also designed  to regulate  and reduce alcoholic habit.  While  commodities  and  situation  dictate  whether power, in  given statutory  provisions, is too plenary to be other  than   arbitrary  or   is  instinct   with   inherent limitations, alcohol  is so  manifestly deleterious that the nature of  the guidelines  is written in invisible ink. [151 G-H] 124      (f)  The   subject-matter  of   the  legislation  is  a deleterious substance  (alcohol) requiring  restrictions  in the  direction  of  moderation  in  consumption,  regulation regarding the  days and hours of sale and appropriateness in the matter  of the  location of the places of sale. If it is coal or  mica or  cinema, the test of reasonableness will be strict, but  if it  is an  intoxicant or  a killer drug or a fire-arm  the  restrictions  must  be  stern.  Just  as  the difference between  bread and brandy is felt in the field of trade control,  coal and  gold are  as apart from whisky and toddy as cabbages are from kings. Life speaks through law. [ 154D-F]      Nashirwar v.  M.P. State  [1975] 2  SCR 861  at  869-71 referred to.      (2) Even  if section 59 and Rule 37 were upheld in toto that does not preclude any affected party from challenging a particular executive act pursuant Thereto on the ground that such an  act is  arbitrary, malafide  or  unrelated  to  the purposes and  the guidelines  available in  the statute.  To illustrate, if  the   Financial Commissioner  or the  Excise Commissioner as  the case  may be  declares that  all liquor shops shall be opened on his birthday or shall remain closed on his  Friend’s death anniversary, the executive order will be invalid.  The law  may be  good, but the executive action may be corrupt and then it cannot be sustained. [145G-H]      (3) The  most significant  social welfare aspect of the closure is  the prevention  of the  ruination  of  the  poor worker by  drinking down  the little earnings he gets on the wage day.  Any  government  with  worker’s  weal  and  their families’ survival  at heart  will use  its  ’police  power’ under Article  19(6) read  with. section 59(f)(v) of the Act to forbid  alcohol sales  on pay days. To save the dependent women and children of wage-earners the former unamended rule had forbidden  sales on  the 7th  day of every month the day the monthly  pay packet  passes into  the employees’ pocket. While bringing  in the Tuesday-Friday for biddance of sales, the ban  on sales on the seventh of every month was entirely deleted. The victims of the change are the weeping wives and crying children of the workers. All power is a trust and its exercise by  governments must be subject to social audit and Judas exposure. [146E-H]      (4)  The  liquor  trade  is  instinct  with  injury  to individual  and  community  aud  has  serious  side  effects recognised everywhere  in every  age. Not to control alcohol business is  to abdicate  the right  to rule for the good of the people. Not to canalize the age and sex of the consumers and servers, the hours of sale and cash-and-carry basis, the punctuation and  pause in  days, to  produce  partially  the ’dry’ habit  it to fail functionally as a welfare state. The whole scheme of the statute proclaims its purpose of control

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 29  

in time  and  space  and  otherwise.  Section  58  vests  in government the  power  for  more  serious  restrictions  and laying down  of principles.  Details and  lesser constraints have been  left to  the rule-making  power of  the Financial Commissioner. The complex of provisions is purpose-oriented, considerably reinforced  by Article  47.  Old  statutes  get invigorated by  the Paramount  Parchment. Interpretation  of the text  of preconstitution  enactments can legitimately be infused  with   the  concerns   and   commitments   of   the Constitution as an imperative exercise. It is impossible ’to maintain that no guidelines are found in the Act. [147D-F]      (5) While  the forensic  problem is constitutional, the Constitution itself  is a  human  document.  The  Court  has justified the  ways of  the Constitution  and the law to the consumers of  social justice  and spirituous potions. [128D, 158G] 125      (6) As  between temperance  and  prohibition  it  is  a policy decision  for the   Administration.  Hopefully it  is expected of  the State  to bear true faith and allegiance to that Constitution orphan, Article 47. [158A, G]      The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi pp 29-30.      Society and  the Criminal  by M.  J. Sethna 3rd Edn. P. 165, 166 & 168-69 .      Society, Crime and Criminal Career by Don C. Gibbars p. 427-428.      Har Shankar  & others  etc. v.  Dy. Excise  &  Taxation Commissioner  &  others  [1975]  3  S.C.R.  254  at  266-267 referred to.      Report of the Study Team on Prohibition Vol. I pp. 344. 346, 347

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ Petitions  Nos. 4021-4022, 4024 4025, 4027-4032, 4037, 4040-4041, 4045-4047, 4049-4075, 4078- 4092,  4099, 4103-4111,  4120-4126,  4129-4140,  4142- 4143, 4155-4157,-4184,  4187, 4188-4190,  4192, 4202,  4203, 4205, 4206,  4212, 4214,  4217, 4223, 4231, 4234-4235, 4245, 4250, 4252, 4300, 4308 of 1978 and 4226 of 1978.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                             AND      Writ  Petitions  Nos.  966-971,  3643-3650,  3884-3896, 3900-3921, 3965,  3975-3990, 4001-4020,  4034, 4100, 4127 to 4128, 4186,  4193, 4208,  4271, of 1978 and 3968-3971, 4191, 4221 and 4272-4275 of 1978.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.                             AND      Writ petitions:  4154, 4209,  4242, 4243,  4247,  4248, 4253, 4254, 4310 and 4314 of 1978.      (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.)      A. K. Sen and Mrs. Rani Chhabra in W.P. 4021/78 for the Petitioners.      Yogeshwar Parshad  and Mrs.  Rani Chhabra  in W.P. Nos. 4022, 4024,  4025, 4027-4032,  4037, 4040, 4041, 4045, 4047, 4046, 4064-4067,  4078, 4079,  4092, 4142, 4143, 4187, 4090, 4092 and 4231 of 1978.      V. C. Mahajan and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Petitioners in W.P. 4049-63, 4080-91, 4108 to 4111/78.      K K. Mohan, S. K. Sabharwal, Pramod Swarup and Shreepal Singh for  the Petns. in W.P. Nos. 103, 4140, 4184, 4202 and 4234 of 1978. 126      O. P.  Sharma, N.  N. Sharma,  A. K.  Srivastava, Amlan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 29  

Ghosh and  P. K.  Ghosh. in  W.P. Nos.  4190-92 and  4226 of 1978.      O. P.  Sharma for the Petitioner in W.P. 4226/78. K. B. Rohtgi for the Petitioners in W.P. 3975-76 and 4274-75/ 78.      O. P. Singh in W.P. 966-71 of 1978 for the Petitioners.      A. L. Trehan for the Petitioner in W.P. 4100/78.      S. K. Sabharwal for the Petitioner in W.P. 4214/78.      M. Qamaruddin for the petitioner in W.P. 4193 of 1978.      R. K. Jain, K. K. Mohan and Rajiv Dutt, L. R. Singh for the Petitioners in W.P. 4271-73/78.      S. N.  Kacker, Sol.  Genl., O. P. Rana for the State of U.P. Soli  J. Sorabjee  Addl. Sol. Genl. of India and Hardev Singh for the State of Punjab,      J. D.  Jain and  B. R.  Kapoor in  W.P. Nos. 4242-4244, 4247 4228, 4209 and 4308 of 1978.      B. R. Kapoor and S. K. Sabharwal for the Petitioners in W.P. 4150-4254/78.      M. P. Jha for the Petitioner in W.P. 4252/78.      S. K.  Sabharwal for  the Petitioner in W.P. 4245, 4253 and 4310/78.      Shreepal Singh for the Petitioners in W.P. 4235/78.      Hardev Singh  on behalf of R. N. Sachthey for the State of Punjab.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.- What  are we about? A raging rain of writ petitions  by hundreds  of merchants of intoxicants hit by a  recently amended  rule declaring  a break of two ’dry’ days in every ’wet’ week for licensed liquor shops and other institutions of  inebriation in  the private sector, puts in issue the  constitutionality of section 59(f)(v) and Rule 37 of  the   Punjab  Excise  Act  and  Liquor  Licence  (Second Amendment) Rules,  (hereinafter, for  short, the Act and the Rules). The  tragic irony  of the legal plea is that Article 14 and  19 of  the very  Constitution, which, in Article 47, makes it  a fundamental  obligation of  the State  to  bring about prohibition  of intoxicating  drinks, is  pressed into service to  thwart the  State’s half-hearted  prohibitionist gesture. Of  course, it  is on the cards that the end may be good but  the means  may be  bad, constitutionally speaking. And there  is a  mystique about legalese beyond the layman’s ken ! 127      To set  the record straight, we must state, right here, that no  frontal attack is made on the power of the State to regulate any trade (even a trade where the turnover turns on tempting the customer to take reeling rolling trips into the realm of  the jocose,  belliocose, lachrymore and comatose). Resort was made to a flanking strategy of anathematising the statutory regulatory  power in S. 59(f)v) and its offspring, the amended  rule interdicting  sales of  tipay  ecstasy  on Tuesdays and Fridays, as too naked, unguided and arcane and, resultantly, too  arbitrary and unreasonable to comport with Arts. 14 and 19.      Our response  at the  first blush was this. Were such a plea  valid,  what  a  large  communication  exists  between lawyer’s law and judicial justice on the one hand and life’s reality and sobriety on the other, unless there be something occultly unconstitutional  in the  impugned Section and Rule below the  visibility zone of men of ordinary comprehension. We here  recall the  principle declared  before the American Bar Association  by a  distinguished Federal......... Judge- William Howard Taft-in 1895:      "If the  law is  but the  essence of  common-sense, the      protests of many average.- men may evidence a defect in      a legal  conclusion though  based on  the nicest  legal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 29  

    reasoning and profoundest learning." The Facts      The Punjab  Excise Act,  1914,  contemplates  grant  of licences, inter  alia, for  trading in  (Indian) foreign and country liquor. There are various conditions attached to the licences which are of a regulatory and fiscal character. The petitioners are  licence-holders and  have,  on  deposit  of heavy licence  fee, been  permitted by  the  State  to  vend liquor. The  conditions of the licences include restrictions of various  types,  including  obligation  not  to  sell  on certain days and during certain hours. Under the former rule 37 Tuesday  upto 2 p.m. was prohibited for sale; so also the seventh day  of the month. The licences were granted subject to rules  framed under  the Act and Section 59 is one of the provisions empowering  rule-making. Rule 37 was amended by a notification whereby,  in the  place of Tuesdays upto 2 p.m. plus the  7th day  of every  month, Tuesdays  and Fridays in every week were substituted, as days when liquor vending was prohibited.  Under   the  modified   rules  a  consequential reduction of the licence fee from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 10,000 was also  made, probably to compensate for the marginal loss caused by  the two-day  closure. Aggrieved by this amendment the petitioners moved this 128 Court challenging its vires as well as the constitutionality of S. 59(f)(v) which is the source of power to make rule 37. If the  Section fails  the rule  must fall, since the stream cannot rise  higher that  the  source.  Various  contentions based on  Art. 19(g) and (6) and Art. 14 were urged and stay of operation of the new rule was granted by this Court.      We  will   presently  examine  the  tenability  of  the argument and  the alleged  vice of  the provisions;  and  in doing so  we adopt,  as counsel  desired, a  policy of  non- alignment on  the morality  of drinking since law and morals interact and  yet are  autonomous; but,  equally clearly, we inform ourselves  of  the  plural  ’pathology’  implicit  in untrammelled trading  in alcohol.  He who  would be  a sound lawyer, Andrea  Alciati, that 16th century Italian humanist, jurist, long  ago stressed,  should not limit himself to the letter of  the text  or the  narrow study  of law but should devote  himself   also  to  history,  sociology,  philology, politics, economics,  nostics and  other allied sciences, if he is  to be  a jurist  priest in  the service of justice or legal engineer of social justice.(1) This is our perspective because, while  the forensic  problem is constitutional, the Constitution itself  is a  human document. The integral yoga of law  and life once underlined, the stage is set to unfold the relevant  facts and  focus on  the precise  contentions. Several counsel have made separate submissions hut the basic note is the same with minor variations in emphasis.      Why drastically  regulate the  drink trade ?-the Social      rationale-on Brandies brief      Anywhere on  our human  planet the  sober imperative of moderating the consumption of inebriating methane substances and manacling  liquor business  towards that  end, will meet with  axiomatic   acceptance.  Medical,  criminological  and sociological testimony  on a  cosmic  scale  bears  out  the tragic miscellany  of traumatic  consequences of,  shattered health and broken homes, of crime escalation with alcohol as the hidden villain or aggressively promotional anti-hero, of psychic   breakdowns,   insane   cravings   and   efficiency impairment, of  pathetic descent  to doom  sans sense,  sans shame,  sans   everything,  and   host  of  other  disasters individuals, familial, genetic and societal.(2)      We need  hot have  dilated further  on the  deleterious

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 29  

impost  of   unchecked  alcohol   intake  on  consumers  and communities but  Shri Mahajan  advocated regulation as valid with the cute rider that even (1) Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. J-ll p. 618. (2) Ibid p. 619-27. 129 water intake,  if  immoderate,  may  affect  health  and  so regulation of   liquor  trade may  not  be  valid,  if  more drastic than  for other  edibles. The sequitur he argued for was  that   the  two-day   ban  on   liquor  licensees   was unreasonable under  Art. 19(g) read with Art. 19(6). He also branded the  power to restrict the days and hours of sale of liquor without  specification of guidelines as arbitrary and scouted the  submission of  the Addl. Solicitor General that the noxious  nature of  alcohol and  the notorious  fall-out from gentle  bibbing at the beginning on to deadly addiction at the  end was  inherent guideline to salvage the provision from constitutional  casualty. Innocently the equate alcohol with aqua  is an  exercise ill  intoxication  and  straining judicial credibility to absurdity. We proceed to explain why alcohol  business   is  dangerous  and  its  very  injurious character and  mischief potential legitimate active policing of the trade by any welfare State even absent Art. 47.      The alcoholics will chime in with A.E. Houseman(1): ’      "And malt  does more  than Milton  can to justify God’s      ways to man... But the  wisdom of  the ages  oozes through Thomas Bacon who wrote:           "For when the wine is in, the wit is out."      Dr. Walter  Reckless, a  criminologist of international repute who  had worked  in India for years has in "The Crime Problem" rightly stressed           "Of all  the problems  in human  society, there is      probably none  which is  as closely related to criminal      behaviour as  is drunkenness. It is hard to say whether      this  close   relation  ship   is  a  chemical  one,  a      psychological  one,  or  a  situational  one.’  Several      different levels  of relationship  between ingestion of      alcohol  and   behaviour  apparently  exist.  A  recent      statement  by   the  National   Council  on  Crime  and      Delinquency quite  succinctly describes  the effect  of      alcohol on  behaviour: Alcohol acts as a depressant; it      inhibits self-  control before  it curtails the ability      to act;  and an  individual’s personality  and  related      social and  cultural factors  assert themselves  during      drunken behaviour  .... Although  its dangers  are  not      commonly understood  or accepted  by the  public, ethyl      alcohol can have perhaps the most serious con sequences      of any mind-and-body-altering drug. It causes (1) Makers of Modern world by Louis Untermeyer p. 275. (2) The  Crime Problem (Fifth Edition) Walter C. Reckle Page 115, 116 & 117. 130      addiction   in    chronic   alcoholics,    who   suffer      consequences just  as serious, if not more serious than      opiate addicts. It is by far the most dangerous and the      most widely used of any drug." (emphasis added). The  President’s   Commission   on   Law   Enforcement   and Administration  of  Justice  made  the  following  pertinent observation:      The figures  show that  crimes of physical violence are      associated with  intoxicated persons.. Thus the closest      relationship   between    intoxication   and   criminal      behaviour (except  for public  intoxication)  has  been      established   for    criminal   categories    involving

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 29  

    assaultive behaviour.  This relationship  is especially      high for  lower class  Negroes and  whites.  More  than      likely, aggression in these groups is weakly controlled      and the  drinking of  alcoholic beverages  serves as  a      triggering  mechanism   for  the  external  release  of      aggression. There  are certain  types of key situations      located in lower class life in which alcohol is a major      factor in  triggering assaultive  behaviour. A frequent      locale is the lower class travern which is an important      social institution  for  the  class  group.  Assaultive      episodes are triggered during the drinking situation by      quarrels that  center around  defaming personal  honor,      threats to masculinity, and questions about one’s birth      legitimacy. Personal quarrels between husband and wife,      especially after  the  husband’s  drinking,  frequently      result in assaultive episodes, in the lower-lower class      family.",      The steady  flow of drunkenness cases through the hands of the police, into our lower courts, and into our jails and workhouses has been labelled the "revolving" door, because a very large  part of  this flow  of cases consists of chronic drinkers who  go through  the door and out, time after time. On one  occasion when  the author  was visiting  a  Saturday morning session  of a misdemeanor court, there was a case of an old  "bum" who  had been in the local workhouse 285 times previously."      An Indian  author, Dr.  Sethna dealing with society and the criminal, has this to say :(1)           Many crimes  are caused  under  the  influence  of      alcohol or drugs. The use of alcohol, m course of time,      causes great and irresistible craving for it. To retain      the so-called (1) Society  and the  Criminal by  M. J.  Sethna 3rd Edn. P. 164. 131      ’satisfaction’, derived  from the  use  of  alcohol  or      drugs, the   drunkard  or the drug-addict has got to go      on increasing  the quantities from time to time; such a      state of  affairs may lead him even to commit thefts or      frauds to  get the  same otherwise. If he gets drunk so      heavily that  he cannot  understand the consequences of      his acts he is quite likely to do some harmful act-even      an act  of homicide.  Every often,  crimes of  violence      have been  committed in  a state  of intoxication.  Dr.      Hearly is  of the  opinion that complete elimination of      alcohol and harmful drug habits would cause a reduction      in crime  by at  least 20  per cent; not only that, but      there  would   also  be   cumulative  effect   on   the      generations to  come, by diminishing poverty, improving      home conditions  and habits  of living and environment,      and perhaps even an improvement in heredity itself.      Abstinence campaigns carried out efficiently and in the      proper manner  show how  crime drops.  Dr. Hearly cites      Baer,  who   says  that   Father  Mathew’s   abstinence      compaigns in Ireland, during 1837-1842, reduced the use      of spirits  SO per  cent, and  the crimes  dropped from      64,520 to  47,027. According  to Evangeline  Booth, the      Commander of  the Salvation  Army, "In  New York before      prohibition, the  Salvation  Army  would  collect  from      1,200 to  1,300 drunkards in a single night and seek to      reclaim  them.   Prohibition  immediately  reduced  the      gathering to 400 and the proportion of actual drunkards      from 95  per cent  to less  than 20  per cent".  And "a      decrease of  two thirds  in the  number  of  derelicts,      coupled with  a decrease  in the  number  of  drunkards

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 29  

    almost to  the  Vanishing  point,  certainly  lightened      crime and  charity bills. It gave many of the erstwhile      drunkards new  hope and  a new  start". So  says E.  E.      Covert, in an interesting article on Prohibition.      The ubiquity of alcohol in the United States has led to nationwide  sample   studies   and   they   make   startling disclosures from  a criminological  angle. For  instance, in Washington, D.C.  76.5 %  of all  arrests in  1965 were  for drunkenness, disorderly conduct and vagrancy, while 76.7% of the total arrests in Atlanta were for these reasons(1)      Of the  8 million  arrests in  1970 almost one-third of these were  alcohol-related. Alcohol  is said  to affect the lives of 9 million persons (1) Society, Crime and Criminal Careers by Don C. Gibbons p. 427-428. 132 and to  cost 10  billion in lost work time and an additional 15 billion health and welfare costs.’’(1)      Richard D.  Knudten stated  "Although more  than 35% of all annual arrests in the United States are for drunkenness, additional persons  committing  more  serious  crimes  while intoxicated are  included  within the other crime categories like drunken driving, assault, rape and murder.(2)      President Brezhnev  bewailed  the  social  maladies  of increasing alcoholism. Nikita Krushchev was unsparing:      "Drunks should be ’kicked out of the party’ not moved from one responsible post to another."(3)      Abraham Lincoln, with conviction and felicity said that the use  of alcohol  beverages had  many  defenders  but  no defence and intoned:           "Whereas the  use  of  intoxicating  liquor  as  a      beverage is  productive of  pauperism, degradation  and      crime, and  believing it is our duty to discourage that      which produces  more evil  than  good,  we,  therefore,      pledge  ourselves   to  abstain   from   the   use   of      intoxicating liquor as a beverage."(4)      In his famous Washington’s birthday address said:           "Whether  or   not  the   world  would  be  vastly      benefited by  a total  and final  banishment from it of      all intoxicating  drinks seems  to me  not now  an open      question.  Three   fourths  of   mankind  confess   the      affirmative with their lips, and I believe all the rest      acknowledge it in their hearts."(5)      Jack Hobbs, the great cricketer, held:           "The greatest  enemy to  success  on  the  cricket      field is the drinking habit."      And Don  Bradman, than  whom few batsmen better wielded the willow, encored and said:           "Leave drink  alone. Abstinence  is the thing that      is what made me."(6) (1) Current  perspectives on  Criminal Behaviour  edited  by Abraham S Blumberg P.23. (2) crime in a complex society by Richard D. Knudten P.138. (3) Report of the study Team on Prohibition Vol. L. P. 344. (4) Ibid p.34s. (5) Ibid p.345. (6) Report of the Study Team on Prohibition vol. I. P.347. 133      Sir Andrew Clark, in Lachrymal language spun the lesson from  hospital beds:      "As I  looked at  the hospital wards today and saw that      seven out  of ten  owed their  diseases to  alcohol,  I      could but  lament that the teaching about this question      was not more direct, more decisive, more home-thrusting      than ever it had been."(1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 29  

    George Bernard  Shaw, a  provocative teetotaller,  used tart words of trite wisdom.           ’If  a  natural  choice  between  drunkenness  and      sobriety were  possible, I  would leave the people free      to choose.  But then  I see  an  enormous  capitalistic      organisation pushing  drink  under  people’s  noses  of      every corner  and pocketing  the price while leaving me      and others  to pay  the colossal  damages,  then  I  am      prepared to smash that organisation and make it as easy      for a  poor man  to stay sober, if he wants to as it is      for his dog.           Alcohol robs  you of  that last inch of efficiency      that  makes   the  difference  between  first-rate  and      second-rate.           I don’t drink beer-first, because I don’t like it;      and second,  because my  profession is one that obliges      me to keep in critical training, and beer is fatal both      to training and to criticism.           only teetotallers  can produce the best and sanest      of which they are capable.           Drinking is  the chloroform  that enables the poor      to endure the painful operation of living.      It is  in the last degree disgraceful that a man cannot      pro vide  his own  genuine  courage  and  high  spirits      without drink.           I  should  be  utterly  ashamed  if  my  soul  had      shrivelled up  to such  an extent  that I had to go out      and drink a whisky. (2)      The constitutional  test of  reasonableness, built into Art. 19  and of  arbitrariness implicit  in Art.  14, has  a relativist touch.  We have to view the impact of alcohol and temperance on a given society; and (1) Ibid P. 347. (2) Report of the study Team on Prohibition Vol. I P. 346. 134 for us,  the degree  of   constitutional restriction and the strategy of  meaningful enforcement will naturally depend on the Third  World setting,  the  ethos  of  our  people,  the economic  compulsions   of  today  and  of  human  tomorrow. Societal realities shape social justice. While the universal evil  in   alcohol  has   been  indicated  the  particularly pernicious consequence  of the  drink evil  in India  may be useful to  R r  remember while scanning the. rationale of an Indian  temperance   measure.  Nearly   four  decades   ago, Gandhiji,  articulating  the  inarticulate  millions’  well- being, wrote:      "The most  that tea  and coffee  can do  is to  cause a      little extra  expense, but one of the most greatly felt      evils  of  the  British  Rule  is  the  importation  of      alcohol..  that   enemy  of   mankind,  that  curse  of      civilisation-in some  form or  an other. The measure of      the  evil  wrought  by  this  borrowed  habit  will  be      properly gauged  by the reader when he is told that the      enemy has  spread throughout  the length and breadth of      India, in  spite of  the religious prohibition for even      the touch  of a  bottle containing alcohol pollutes the      Mohammedan, according to his religion, and the religion      of the  Hindu strictly  prohibits the use of alcohol in      any form  whatever, and  yet alas  ! the Government, it      seems, instead  of stopping, is aiding and abetting the      spread of  alcohol. The  poor there, as everywhere, are      the greatest  sufferers. It  is  they  who  spend  what      little they  earn in  buying alcohol  instead of buying      good food  and other  necessaries It  is that  wretched      poor man who has to starve his family, who has to break

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 29  

    the sacred trust of looking after his children, if any,      in order  to drink  himself into  misery and  premature      death. Here  be it said to the credit of Mr. Caine, the      ex-Member for  Barrow, that,  he  undaunted,  is  still      carrying on his admirable crusade against the spread of      the evil,  but what can the energy of one man, however,      powerful, do  against the  inaction of an apathetic and      dormant Government."(1)      Parenthetically speaking,  many of  these thoughts  may well  be   regarded  by   Gandhians  as   an  indictment  of governmental policy even to-day.      The thrust  of drink  control has  to be  studied in  a Third World country, developing its; human resources and the haven if  offers to  the poor,  especially their dependents. Gandhiji again:      "For me  the drink  question is  one of  dealing with a      growing social evil against which the State is bound to (1) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi pp.29-30 135      provide whilst  it has  got the opportunity. The aim is      patent.   We want  to wean the labouring population and      the Harijans  from the curse. It is a gigantic problem,      and  the   best  resources   of  all   social  workers,      especially women,  will be  taxed to  the utmost before      the drink habit goes. The prohibition I have adumbrated      is but the beginning (undoubtedly indispensable) of the      reform. We  cannot reach  the drinker so long as he has      the drink ship near his door to tempt him ’’(l)      Says Dr. Sethna in his book already referred to:           "And  in   India,   with   the   introduction   of      prohibition we find a good decline in crime. There are,      however, some  per sons  who cannot  do without liquor.      Such persons  even so  to the  extent of making illicit      liquor and  do  not  mind  drinking  harmful  rums  and      spirits. The  result is starvation of children at home,      assaults and quarrels between husband and wife, between      father and  child, desertion, and other evils resulting      from the abuse of alcohol.           The introduction  of prohibition in India actually      caused considerable fall in the number of crimes caused      by intoxication.  Before prohibition  one often  had to      witness the  miserable spectacle  of poor  and Ignorant      persons-mill- hands. Labourers, and even the unemployed      with starving  families at  home-frequenting the pithas      (liquor and  adulterated toddy  shops) drinking burning      and  harmful  spirits,  and  adulterated  toddy,  which      really had  no vitamin  value; these  persons spent the      little they  earned after  a hard  day’s toil,  or what      little that  had remained  with them  or what  they had      obtained by  some theft,  trick, fraud  or a  borrowing      they spent  away all that, and then, at home, left wife      and  children  starving  and  without  proper  clothes,      education,  and   other   elementary   necessaries   of      life."(2) (emphasis added)      The Labour  Welfare Department or the State Governments and of  the Municipalities  are rendering  valuable service, through their  labour  welfare  officers  who  work  at  the centres assigned to them, impressing upon the people how the use of  alcohol is  ruinous and instructing them also how to live hygienically;  there are  lectures on the evils of drug and drink habits. (1) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 66 P. 47. (2) Society  and the  Criminal by  M. J.  Sethna 3rd Edn. p. 165, 166 & 168-169. 136

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 29  

    Partial  prohibition   of  hot   country  liquors   was introduced by  the Congress  Ministries  in  Bombay,  Bihar, Madras  (in   Salem,  Chittor,   Cuddaph  and   North  Arcot Districts) when  they first  came into  power. In  C. P. and Berar, prohibition  covered approximately  one-fourth of the area and  population of  the State. In Assam, prohibition is directed mainly  against opium.  In Deccan  Hyderabad on 3rd January, 1943,  a Firman  as issued  by his Exalted Highness the Nizam,  supporting the  temperance movement.  Jammu  and Kashmir came  also on  the move  towards prohibition.  Since 1949 State Governments determined the policy of introduction of total prohibition.      On April  10, 1948,  the Central  Advisory Council  for Railways, under  the Chairmanship  of the  Hon’ble Dr.  John Matthai, agreed to the proposal to ban the serving of liquor in refreshment rooms at railway stations and dining cars.      In Madras,  prohibition was  inaugurated on 2nd October 1948, by  the Premier.  the  Hon’ble  Mr.  O.  P.  Ramaswami Reddiar who pronounced it a red letter day.      In 1949,  West Punjab  took steps for the establishment of prohibition. In 1949, nearly half the area of the Central Provinces and  Berar got dry, and it was proposed to enforce prohibition throughout the State.      In Bombay  the Prohibition  Bill was  passed and became Act in 1949, and Bombay got dry by April 1950.      The  number  of  offences;  under  the  Abkari  Act  is notoriously high.  It shows  the craving of some persons for liquor in  spite of  all good  efforts of legal prohibition. The remedy  lies in  making prohibition  successful  through education  (even   at  the  school  stage),  suggestion  re- education.      The Tek  Chand Committee(1)  surveyed the civilizations from Babylon  through China, Greece, Rome and India. X-rayed the  religions  of  the  world  and  the  dharmasastras  and concluded from  this conspectus  that alcoholism  was public enemy. Between innocent first sour sip and nocent never-stop alcoholism  only   time   is   the   thin   partition   and, inevitability the  sure  nexus,  refined  arguments  to  the contrary notwithstanding(2).      In India,  some genteel socialities have argued for the diplomatic pay-off from drinks and Nehru has negatived it:      (1) Report  of the  Study Team on Prohibition. (2) Ibid p. 345. (Vol. l). 137           "Not only  does the health of a nation suffer from      this  (alcoholism), but there is a tendency to increase      conflicts both  in the  national and  the international      sphere."      I must  say that I do not agree with the statement that is  sometimes   made-even  by  our  ambassadors-that  drinks attract people  to parties and if there are no drinks served people will not come. I have quite B: frankly told them that if people  are only attracted by drinks, you had better keep away such people from our missions...... I do not believe in this kind  of diplomacy which depends on drinking....and, if we have  to indulge  in that  kind of diplomacy, others have had more training in it and are like to win.(1)      Of  course,   the  struggle   for  Swaraj  went  beyond political liberation  and  demanded  social  transformation. Redemption from  drink evil  was woven  into  this  militant movement and Gandhiji was the expression of this mission.      "I hold  drink to  be more  damnable than  thieving and perhaps even  prostitution. Is  it not  often the  parent to both ?  I ask  you to  join the  country in  sweeping out of existence the drink revenue and abolishing the liquor shops.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 29  

    Let me,  therefore, re-declare  my faith  in  undiluted prohibition before  I land my self in deeper water. If I was appointed dictator  for one  hour for  all India,  the first thing I  would do would be to close without compensation all the liquor  shops destroy all the toddy palms such as I know them in  Gujarat, compel  factory owners  to produce  humane conditions  for   the  workmen   and  open  refreshment  and recreation rooms  where these  workmen  would  get  innocent drinks and  equally innocent  amusements. I would close down the factories if the owners pleaded for want of funds."(2)      It has  been a  plank in  the national  programme since 1920. It  is coming,  therefore, in  due fulfillment  of the national  will  definitely  expressed  nearly  twenty  years ago.(3) Sociological Journey to interpretative Destination.      This long excursion may justly be brought to a close by an off repeated but constitutionally relevant quotation from Field, J.  irresistible attractive for fine-spun feeling and exquisite expression.      "There is  in this  position an  assumption of  a  fact which does  not exist,  that when  the liquors  are taken in excess the injuries are confined to the party offending. The injury, if it is true, first falls upon (1) Report of the Study Team on prohibition Vol. I P. 345. (2) Ibid P. 344. (3) Collected  Works of  Mahatma Gandhi  Vol. 69  P. 83. 10- 520SCI/78 138 him in  his health,  which  the  habit  undermines;  in  his morals, which it weakens; and in the self-abasement which it creates. But as it leads to neglect of business and waste of property and  general demoralization,  it affects  those who are immediately connected with or dependent upon him. By the general  concurrence  of  opinion  of  every  civilised  and Christian community,  there are  few sources  of  crime  and misery to society equal to the dram shop, where intoxication liquors, in  small quantities,  to be drunk at the time, are sold  indiscriminately   to  all   parties   applying.   The statistics of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at those retail  liquor saloons  than to  any other source. The sale of such liquors in this way has therefore, been, at all times, by  the courts  of every  State,  considered  as  the proper subject  of legislative  regulation. Not  only may  a licence be  exacted from  the keeper  of the saloon before a glass  of   his  liquors   can  be  thus  disposed  of.  but restrictions may  be imposed  as to  the class of persons to whom they  may be  sold, and  the hours  of the day, and the days of  the week, on which the saloons may be opened. Their sale in  that form  may be  absolutely prohibited.  It is  a question of  Public Expediency  and public morality, and not of  federal  law.  The  police  power  of  the  State  fully competent to  regulate the business to mitigate its evils or to suppress  it entirely,  there is  no inherent  right in a citizen to  thus sell  intoxicating liquors by retail, it is not a privilege of a citizen of the State or of a citizen of the United  States. As it is a business attended with danger to the  community, it  may  as  already  said,  be  entirely prohibited, or  be permitted  under such  conditions as will limit to  the utmost  its evils.  The manner  and extent  of regulation  rest   in  the   discretion  of   the  Governing authority. That  authority may  vest in  such officers as it may deem  proper and  power of passing upon applications for permission to  carry it  on, and  to issue licenses for that purpose. It is a matter of legislative will only."(1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 29  

    The Panorama  of views,  insights and  analyses we have tediously.  projected   serves  the  sociological  essay  on adjudicating the  reasonableness and  arbitrariness  of  the impugned shut  down order  on Tuesdays and Fridays. Whatever our personal  views and  reservations on the philosophy, the politics, the  economics and  the pragmatics of prohibition, we are  called upon  to pass  on the  vires of  the  amended order. "We,  the people  of India’, have enacted Art. 47 and ’we, the  Justices of  India’ cannot ’lure it back to cancel half a  life’ or  ’wash out  a word  of it’, especially when progressive implementation  of the policy of prohibition is, by Articles  38 and  47 made  fundamental to  the  country’s governance. The Constitution is the property of the people (1) Crowely v. Christensen, 34, Law Ed. 620, 623. 139 and the courts know-how is to apply the constitution, not to assess it.  In the process of interpretation, Part IV of the Constitution must  enter the  soul of Part III and the laws, as held  by the  Court in  State of  Kerala &  Anr. v. N. M. Thomas &  Ors.(1) and  earlier. The  dynamics  of  statutory construction,  in  a  country  like  ours,  where  the  pre- Independence Legislative  package has  to be  adapted to the vital spirit  of the  Constitution, may demand that new wine be poured into old bottles, language permitting. We propound no novel proposition and recall the opinion of Chief Justice Winslow of Wisconsin upholding as constitutional a Workmen’s Compensation Act of which he said:           "when an eighteenth century constitution forms the      charter of  liberty of  a twentieth century government,      must  its   general   provisions   be   construed   and      interpreted by an eighteenth century mind surrounded by      eighteenth century conditions and ideals ? Clearly not.      This were  a command  of half the race in its progress,      to  stretch   the  state   upon  a   veritable  bed  of      Procrustes.  Where  there  is  no  express  command  or      prohibition, but  only general language of policy to be      considered, the  conditions prevailing  at the  time of      its adoption must have their due weight hut the changed      social, economic  and governmental  conditions  of  the      time, as  well as  the problems  which the changes have      produced,  must   also   logically   enter   into   the      consideration and  become influential  factors  in  the      settlement   of    problems   of    construction    and      interpretation."(2)      In short,  while the  imperial masters  were  concerned about the  revenues they  could make  from the  liquor trade they were  not indifferent  to the  social control  of  this business which,  if left  unbridled, was fraught with danger to health, morals, public order and the flow of life without stress or  distress. Indeed  even collection  of revenue was intertwined with  orderly milieu; and these twin objects are reflected in  the scheme  and provisions of the Act. Indeed, the history  of  excise  legislation  in  this  country  has received judicial  attention earlier  and the whole position has been  neatly summarised  by Chandrachud  J. (as  he then was) if  we may say so with great respect, as a scissor-and- paste operation is enough for our purpose: (1) [1976] I S.C.R. 906. (2) Borgnis  v. The Falk Co. 147 Wisconsin Reports P. 327 at 348 et  See (1911).  That this  doctrine is  to be deemed to apply  only   to  "due   process’  and   "police  -   Power" determinations,  see   especially  concurring   opinions  of Marshalle, and Barness, J. 140           "Liquor licensing has a long history. Prior to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 29  

    passing  of  the  Indian  Constitution,  the  licensees      mostly restricted  their challenge to the demand of the      Government as  being in  excess of the condition of the      licence or on the ground that the rules in pursuance of      which  such  conditions  were  framed  were  themselves      beyond  the   rule-making  power   of   the   authority      concerned.           The provisions  of the  Punjab Excise  Act,  1914,      like the  provisions of  similar Acts in force in other      States, reflect  the nature  and the width of the power      in the matter of liquor licensing. We will notice first      the relevant provisions of the Act under consideration.           Section S of the Act empowers the State Government      to regulate  the maximum  or minimum  quantity  of  any      intoxicant which  may be  sold by  retail or wholesale.      Section 8(a)  vests  the  general  superintendence  and      administration of all matters relating to excise in the      Financial Commissioner,  subject to  the control of the      State  Government.   Section  16   provides   that   no      intoxicant shall  be imported,  exported or transported      except after payment of the necessary duty or execution      of a  bond for such payment and in compliance with such      conditions as  the State Government may impose. Section      17 confers  upon the  State  Government  the  power  to      prohibit the import or export of any intoxicant into or      from Punjab  or any  part thereof  and to  prohibit the      transport  of  any  intoxicant.  By  section  20(1)  no      intoxicant can  be manufactured  or collected,  no hemp      plant can  be cultivated  no tari producing tree can be      tapped, no  tari can  be drawn  from any  tree  and  no      person  can  possess  any  material  or  apparatus  for      manufacturing an  intoxicant  other  than  tari  except      under the  authority and  subject.  to  the  terms  and      conditions of  a licence  granted by  the Collector. By      sub section  (2) of section 20 no distillery or brewery      can be constructed or worked except under the authority      and subject  to the  terms and  conditions of a licence      granted  by  the  Financial  Commissioner.  Section  24      provides that  no person  shall have  in his possession      any intoxicant  in excess of such quantity as the State      Government declares  to be  the limit  of retail  sale,      except under  the authority  and in accordance with the      terms and  conditions of  a  licence  or  permit.  Sub-      section (4) of section 24 empowers the State Government      to prohibit the posses 141           sion of  any intoxicant or restrict its possession           by imposing  such conditions  as it may prescribe.           Section 26  prohibits the  sale of  liquor  except           under the  authority and  subject to the terms and           conditions of a licence granted in that behalf.                Section 27  of the  Act  empowers  the  State           Government to  "lease" on  such conditions and for           such period  as it  may deem  fit or  retail,  any           country liquor  or intoxicating  drug  within  any           specified local  area. On such lease being granted           the Collector, under sub-section (2), has to grant           to the lessee a licence in the form of his lease.                Section 34(1)  of the Act provides that every           licence, permit  or pass  under the  Act shall  be           granted (a)  on payment  of such fees, if any, (b)           subject  to   such  restrictions   and   on   such           conditions, (c)  in such  form and containing such           particulars,  and  (d)  for  such  period  as  the           Financial  Commissioner  may  direct.  By  section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 29  

         35(2), before  any  licence  is  granted  for  the           retail sale  of  liquor  for  consumption  on  any           premises the  Collector  has  to  ascertain  local           public opinion  in regard to the licensing of such           premises.  Section   36  confers   power  on   the           authority  granting   any  licence  to  cancel  or           suspend it if, inter alia; any duty or fee payable           thereon has not been duly paid.                Section 56  of the  Act  empowers  the  State           Government  to  exempt  any  intoxicant  from  the           provisions of  the Act.  By section  58 the  State           Government may  make  rules  for  the  purpose  of           carrying out  the provisions  of this Act. Section           59 empowers  the Financial  Commissioner by clause           (a) to  regulate the  manufacture, supply, storage           or sale of any intoxicant.                xxx            xxx             xx                The Prohibition  and Excise  Laws in force in           other  States   contain  provisions  substantially           similar to  those contained  in the  Punjab Excise           Act. Several  Acts passed  by  State  Legislatures           contain  provisions   rendering  it   unlawful  to           manufacture  export,  import,  transport  or  sell           intoxicating liquor  except in  accordance with  a           licence, permit  or pass  granted in  that behalf.           The Bombay Abkari Act 1878; the Bombay Prohibition           Act 1949, the Bengal Excise Acts of 1878 and 1909;           the Madras Abkari Act 1886; 142           the Laws  and Rules contained in the Excise Manual           United Province,  the  Eastern  Bengal  and  Assam           Excise Act  1910; the  Bihar and orissa Excise Act           1915; the  Cochin Abkari  Act as  amended  by  the           Kerala Abkari  Laws Act  1964; the  Madhya Pradesh           Excise  Act   1915,   are   instances   of   State           legislation  by   which   extensive   powers   are           conferred on the State Government in the matter of           liquor licensing. (1)      In this background, let us read S. 59(f)(v) and Rule 37 before and after the impugned amendment:                "59(f)(v). The  fixing of  the days and hours           during which  any licensed premises may or may not           be kept  open, and the closure of such premises on           special occasions;      Rule 37(9). Conditions dealing with licensed hours-                Every licensee  for the  sale of liquor shall           keep his  shop closed  on the seventh day of every           month, on all Tuesdays upto 2 p.m. On Republic day           (26th January), on Independence day (15th August),           on Mahatma  Gandhi’s birthday (2nd October) and on           such days  not exceeding three in a year as may be           declared by  the Government  in  this  behalf.  He           shall  observe   the  following   working   hours.           hereinafter called  the licensed  hours, and shall           not,  without   the   sanction   of   the   Excise           Commissioner, Punjab or other competent authority,           keep  his   shop  open  outside  these  hours  The           licensed hours shall be as follows:                           xx xx xx After amendment      37(9). Conditions dealing with licensed hours.-                Every licensee  for the  sale of liquor shall           keep his  shop closed on every Tuesday and Friday,           on Republic  Day (26th  January), on  Independence           day (15th  August), on  Mahatma Gandhi’s  birthday

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 29  

         (2nd October) and on such days not exceeding three           in a  year as may be declared by the Government in           this  behalf.   He  shall  observe  the  following           working hours,  hereinafter  called  the  licensed           hours, and  shall not, without the sanction of the           Excise (1) Har Shankar & Ors. etc. v. Dy. Excise & Taxation Commr.. and ors. [1975 ], 3 S.C.R. 254 at 266-267. 143           Commissioner, Punjab or other competent authority,           keep   his shop  open  outside  these  hours.  The           licensed hours shall be as follows:                     *     *           *      Note:     The condition  regarding  closure  of  liquor      shops  on   very  Tuesday   and  Friday  shall  not  be      applicable in the case of licenses of tourist bungalows      and re sorts being run by the Tourism Department of the      State Government.      Before formulating the contentions pressed before us by Shri A. K. Sen, Shri Mahajan and Shri Sharma, we may mention that  Shri   Seth,  one   of  the   Advocates   who   argued innovatively, did  contend  that  the  Act  was  beyond  the legislative  competence  of  the  State  and  if  that  tall contention met  with our  approval there was nothing more to be done.  To substantiate this daring submission the learned counsel referred  us to  the entries in the Seventh Schedule to the  Constitution. All  that we  need  say  is  that  the argument is  too abstruse  for us to deal with intelligibly. To mention  the plea is necessary but to chase it further is supererogatory. The main contention      The primary submission proceeded on the assumption that a citizen  had a  fundamental right  to carry  on  trade  or business in intoxicants. The learned Addl. Solicitor General urged that  no such  fundamental  right  could  be  claimed, having  regard   to  noxious   substances  and  consequences involved and  further contended  that,  notwithstanding  the observations of Subba Rao, C.J. in Krishna Kumar Narula etc. v. The  State of  Jammu & Kashmir & ors.(I) the preponderant view of  this Court, precedent and subsequent to the ’amber’ observations in  the aforesaid  decision, has  been that  no fundamental right  can be  claimed by a citizen in seriously obnoxious  trades,   offensive   businesses   or   outraging occupations like trade in dangerous commodities, trafficking in human flesh, horrifying exploitation or ruinous gambling. Even so,  since the  question of  the fundamentality of such right  is  before  this  Court  in  other  batches  of  writ petitions which are not before us, we have chosen to proceed on the  footing, arguendo, that there is a fundamental right in liquor  trade for  the petitioners. Not that we agree nor that Shree  Sorabjee concedes that there is such a right but that, (1) [1961] S S.C.R. SO. 144 for the  sake of  narrowing the scope of the colossal number of writ  petitions now  before us, this question may well be skirted. The  Bench and  the Bar  have, therefore,  focussed attention on  the vires of the provision from the standpoint of valid  power of  regulation of the liquor trade vis-a-vis unreasonableness, arbitrariness  and vacuum  of any indicium for just  exercise. Essentially,  the point pressed was that S. 59(f)(v)  vested  an  unguided,  uncanalised,  vague  and vagarious power  in the  Financial Commissioner  to fix  any days or  number of  days and any hours or number of hours as his fancy  or humour suggested. There were no guidelines, no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 29  

indicators, no  controlling points whereby the widely-worded power of  the Excise  Commissioner on  whom  Government  has vested the  power pursuant  to Sec. 9) should be geared to a definite goal  embanked by  some clear-cut  policy and  made accountable to some relevant principle. Such a plenary power carried the  pernicious potential for tyrannical exercise in its  womb   and  would   be  still   born,  judged   by  our constitutional values.  If the power is capable of fantastic playfulness or  fanciful misuse  it is  unreasonable,  being absolute, tested  by the  canons of the rule of law. And if, arguendo, it  is so  unreasonably wide  as  to  imperil  the enjoyment of  a fundamental  right it  is violative  of Art. 19(1)(g) and  is not  saved by  Art. 19(6). Another facet of the same submission is that if the provision is an arbitrary armour, the  power-wielder can  act nepotistically, pick and choose discriminatorily  or  gambol  goodily.  Where  a  law permits discrimination,  huff and  humour, the  guarantee of equality becomes  phoney, flimsy  or  illusory  Art.  14  is outraged by such a provision and is liable to be quashed for that reason. . An important undertaking by the State      We must  here  record  an  undertaking  by  the  Punjab Government and  eliminate a  possible confusion. The amended rule partially  prohibits liquor  sales in the sense that on Tuesdays  and   Fridays  no   hotel,  restaurant   or  other institution covered  by it  shall trade  in liquor. But this prohibition is  made non-applicable to like institutions run by the Government or its agencies. We, prima face, felt that this was  discriminatory  on  its  face.  Further,  Art.  47 charged  the  State  with  promotion  of  prohibition  as  a fundamental policy  and it is indefensible for Government to enforce  prohibitionist  restraints  on  others  and  itself practise the opposite and betray the constitutional mandate. It suggests  dubious dealing  by State  Power.  Such  hollow homage to  Art. 47  and  the  Father  of  the  nation  gives diminishing credibility  mileage in  a democratic polity The learned Additional Solicitor General, without going into the correctness of propriety of 145 our  initial   view-probably  he  wanted  to  controvert  or clarify-readily    agreed  that the Tuesday-Friday ban would be  equally   observed  by   the  State   organs  also.  The undertaking recorded,  as part  of the  proceddings  of  the Court, runs thus:-           "The Additional  Solicitor General  appearing  for      the State  of  Punjab  states  that  the  Punjab  State      undertakes to proceed on the footing that the ’Note’ is      not in  force and  that they  do not propose to rely on      the ’Note’ and will, in regard to tourist bungalows and      resorts run  by the  Tourism Department  of  the  State      Government observe  the same regulatory provision as is      contained in  the substantive  part of Rule 37 Sub-rule      9.  We  accept  this  statement  and  treat  it  as  an      undertaking by the State. Formal steps for deleting the      ’Note’ will be taken in due course."      Although a  Note can  be law,  here the  State concedes that it may not be treated as such. Even otherwise, the note is plainly severable and the rule independently viable. Shri A. K. Sen who had raised this point at the beginning allowed it to  fade out  when the State’s undertaking was brought to his notice.  The vice  of discrimination, blotted out of the law  by   this  process,  may  not  be  sufficient,  if  the traditional approach  were to  be made to striking down; but if restructuring  is done  and the  formal process  delayed, there is  no reason  to quash  when the  correction is done.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 29  

Courts try  to save,  not to scuttle, when allegiance to the Constitution is shown.      In short,  Tuesdays and  Fridays, so  long as this rule remains (as  modified in the light of the undertaking) shall be a  holiday for  the liquor trade in the private Or public sector throughout  the State.  We need  hardly state that if Government goes  back on  this altered  law the consequences may be  plural and  unpleasant. Of course, we do not expect, in the least, that any such apprehension will actualise.      one confusion  that we want to clear up is that even if S. 59 and Rule 37 were upheld in toto that does not preclude any affected  party from  challenging a particular executive act pursuant  thereto on  the ground  that such  an  act  is arbitrary, mala  fide or  unrelated to  the purposes and the guidelines available  in the  Statute. If, for instance, the Financial Commissioner  or the  Excise Commissioner,  as the case may  be declares  that all liquor shops shall be opened on his birthday or shall remain closed on his friend’s death anniversary, whatever  our pronouncement on the vires of the impugned provisions,  the executive  order will be sentenced to death.  The law  may be  good, the act may be corrupt and then it cannot be saved. 146      The only  question seriously  canvassed before us is as to whether the power under S. 59(f)(v) unguided and the rule framed there  under is  bad as  arbitrary. We will forthwith examine the soundness of that proposition.      An irrelevant  controversy  consumed  some  court  time viz.,  that   the  two-day   shut-down  rule  meant  that  a substantial portion  of the  year for  which the licence was granted for  full consideration  would thus  be  sliced  off without compensation. This step was iniquitous and inflicted loss and  was therefore  ’unreasonable’-therefore void.  The Additional Solicitor  General refuted  this charge  on facts and challenged its relevance in law. We must not forget that we are  examining the vires of a law, not adjudging a breach of contract  and if  on account  of a  legislation  a  party sustains damages  or claims a refund that does not bear upon the vires of the provision but be longs to another province.      Moreover, the  grievance of  the  petitioners  is  mere ’boloney’ be  cause even  their licence fee has been reduced under the  amended rule  to compensate,  as it were, for the extra closure  of a  day or  so. We  do not  delve into  the details nor  pronounce on  it as  it  is  not  pertinent  to constitutionality. But a disquieting feature of the rule, in the background  of the  purpose of  the measure, falls to be noticed. Perhaps  the most significant social welfare aspect of the  closure is  the prevention  of the  ruination of the poor worker  by drinking down the little earnings he gets on the wage  day. Credit  sales are banned and cash sales spurt on wage  days. Any Government, with -workers’ weal and their families’ survival  at heart,  will use  its  police  power’ under Art.  19(6) read  with Sec.  59(f)(v) of  the  Act  to forbid alcohol  sales  on  pay  days.  Wisely  to  save  the dependent women  and children  of  wage-earners  the  former unamended rule  had forbidden  sales on  the seventh  day of every month  (when, it is well known, the monthly pay packet passes into  the employees’ pocket). To permit the tavern or liquor bar  to transact  business that  tempting days  is to abet the  dealer who picks the pocket of the vulnerables and betray the  Gandhian behest.  And yet, while bringing in the Tuesday-Friday forbiddance of sales, the ban on sales on the seventh of every month was entirely deleted-an oblique bonus to the  liquor lobby, if we look at it sternly, an unwitting indiscretion, if we view it indulgently. The victims are the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 29  

weeping wives  and crying children of the workers. All power is a  trust and  its exercise by governments must be subject to social  audit  and  Judas  exposure.  ’For  whom  do  the constitutional bells toll ?’ this court asked in an earlier 147 judgment relating  to Scheduled  Castes.(1) We  hope  Punjab will   rectify the  error and hearten the poor in the spirit of Art. 47 and not take away by the left hand what the right hand gives. We indicated these thoughts in the course of the hearing so  that no one was taken by surprise. Be that as it may, the  petitioner can  derive no aid and comfort from our criticisms  which  are  meant  to  alert  the  parliamentary auditors of subordinate legislation in our welfare 1 State. The Scheme and the subject matter supply the guidelines      We come  to the crux of the matter. Is Section 59(f)(v) ’bad for want of guidelines ? Is it over-broad or too bald ? Does it lend itself to naked, unreasonable exercise? We were taken through  a few rulings where power without embankments was held  bad. They  related to  ordinary items like coal or restrictions where  guidelines were blank. Here, we are in a different street  altogether. The  trade  is  instinct  with injury to  individual and  community and  has serious  side- effects recognised  everywhere in  every age. Not to control alcohol business  is to  abdicate the  right to rule for the good of  the people.  Not to  canalise the  age and  sex  of consumers and  servers, the hours of sale and cash-and-carry basis,  the   punctuation  and  pause  in  days  to  produce partially the  ’dry’ habit-is  to  fail  functionally  as  a welfare State. The whole scheme of the statute proclaims its purpose of  control in time and space and otherwise. Section 58  vests   in  Government   the  power   for  more  serious restrictions and  laying down  of  principles.  Details  and lesser constraints  have been  left to the rule-making power of the  Financial Commissioner. The complex of provisions is purpose-oriented, considerably  reinforced by  Art. 47.  Old statutes  get   invigorated  by   the  Paramount  Parchment. Interpretation of  the text  of pre-constitution  enactments can  legitimately   be  infused   with  the   concerns   and commitments or  the Constitution, as an imperative exercise. Thus, it  is impossible  to maintain  that no guidelines are found in the Act.      We wholly  agree with  the learned Additional Solicitor General that  the search  for guidelines  is  not  a  verbal excursion.  The   very  .   subject-matter  of  the  statute intoxicants-eloquently  impresses   the  Act  with  a  clear purpose, a  social orientation  and a statutory strategy. If bread and  brandy are  different the  point we  make  argues itself. The  goal IS  promotion of  temperance and,  flowing there out,  of sobriety,  public order,  individual  health, crime control,  medical bills,  family welfare,  curbing  of violence and  tension, restoration  of the  addict’s mental, moral and physical personality and interdict on (1) [1977] 1.S.C.R. 906. 148 impoverishment, in  various  degrees,  compounded.  We  have extensively quoted  supportive literature; and regulation of alcohol per  se  furnishes  a  definite  guideline.  If  the Section or  the Rule  intended to  combat an evil is misused for a  perverse, ulterior  or extraneous object that action, not  the   law,  will   be  struck   down.  In   this  view, discrimination or arbitrariness is also excluded.      A final  bid  to  stigmatize  the  provision  [Sec.  59 (f)(v)] was  made by raising a consternation. The power to - fix the  days and  hours is  so broad that the authority may fix six  out of  seven days  or 23  out of 24 hours as ’dry’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 29  

days or  closed hours  and thus  cripple the  purpose of the licence. This is an ersatz apprehension, a caricature of the provision and  an assumption  of power  run amok.  An Abkari law, as  here unfolded  by the scheme (chapters and Sections further amplified  by the rules framed thereunder during the last 64  years) is  not a  Prohibition Act with a mission of total prohibition.  The  obvious  object  is  a  to  balance temperance with  tax, to  condition and  curtail consumption without liquidating  the liquor business, to experiment with phased and progressive projects of prohibition without total ban  on   the  alcohol   trade  or  individual  intake.  The temperance movement  leaves the  door half-closed, not wide, ajar; the  prohibition crusade  banishes wholly the drinking of intoxicants.  So it  follows that  the limited temperance guideline writ large in the  Act will monitor the use of the power. Operation  Temperance, leading  later to  the former, may be a strategy within the scope of the Abkari Act.      Both may  be valid but we do not go into it. Suffice it to say  that even  restrictions under Art. 19 may, depending on  situations,  be  pushed  to  the  point  of  prohibition consistently with  reasonableness. The  chimerical fear that ’fix the  days’ means  even ban  the whole  week, is  either pathological or  artificial, not  certainly real  under  the Act. We  are not to be understood to say that a complete ban is without  the bounds  of  the  law-it  turns  on  a  given statutory scheme.      While the  police power  as developed  in the  American jurisprudence and  constitutional law, may not be applicable in terms  to the  Indian Constitutional  law, there  is much that is  common between that doctrine and the reasonableness doctrine under Art. 19 of the Indian Constitution. Notes  an American Law Journal:           "The police  power has often been described as the      "least  limitable"   of  the  governmental  powers.  An      attempt to  define its  reach or trace its outer limits      is fruitless  for each  case turns upon its own facts..      The police  power must  be used  to promote the health,      safety, or  general welfare  of  the  public,  and  the      exercise of the power must be 149      "reasonable". An  exercise of  the police  power  going      beyond  these  basic  limits  is  not  constitutionally      permissible.           Noxious Use Theory: . This theory upholds as valid      any regulation  of the  use of  property, even  to  the      point of total destruction of value, so long as the use      prohibited is harmful to others." (1)      In a  Law  Review  published  from  the  United  States ’police power’ with reference to intoxicant liquors has been dealt with and is instructive:           "Government control  over intoxicating liquors has      long been recognized as a necessary function to protect      society from  the evils  attending  it.  Protection  of      society and  not the  providing of  a  benefit  of  the      license holder  is the  chief  end  of  such  laws  and      regulations. There is no inherent right in a citizen to      sell intoxicating  liquors as  retail. It is a business      attended  with  danger  to  the  community  and  it  is      recognised everywhere as a subject of regulation."      As to  the legislative  power to  regulate liquor,  the United States Supreme Court has stated:           "If the public safety or the public morals require      the discontinuance  of the  manufacture or  traffic (of      intoxicating  liquors)  the  hand  of  the  legislature      cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 29  

    by any  incidental inconvenience  which individuals  or      corporations may suffer."           The  States   have  consistently   held  that  the      regulation of  intoxicants is  a valid  exercise of its      police power.  The police  power stands  upon the basic      principle that  some rights must be and are surrendered      or modified  in entering  into the social and political      state as  indispensible to  the good government and due      regulation and well being of society.           In   evaluating   the   constitutionality   of   a      regulation within the police power, validity depends on      whether the  regulation is  designed  to  accomplish  a      purpose within the scope of that power."(2) (1) South  Western Law  Journal-Annual Survey  of Texas Law, vol. 30 No. I, Survey 1976 pp. 725-26. (2) Idaho Law Review, Vol. 7, 1970 p. 131. 150      It  is  evident  that  there  is  close  similarity  in judicial thinking on the subject. This has been made further clear  from  several  observations  of  this  Court  in  its judgments and  we may  make a  reference to  a recent  case, Himmatlal, and a few observations therein:           "In the  United States  of America,  operators  of      gambling sought  the protection of the commerce clause.      But the  Court upheld  the power  of  the  Congress  to      regulate and  control the same. Likewise, the pure Food      Act which  prohibited the  importation  of  adulterated      food was  upheld. The  prohibition of transportation of      women for immoral purposes from one State to another or      to a  foreign land  was held valid. Gambling itself was      held in  great disfavour  by the  Supreme  Court  which      roundly stated  that ’there  is no constitutional right      to gamble‘.           Das, C.J.,  after  making  a  survey  of  judicial      thought, here  and  abroad,  opined  that  freedom  was      unfree when  society was  exposed to grave risk or held      in ransom  by the operation of the impugned activities.      The contrary argument that all economic activities were      entitled to  freedom as  ’trade’ subject  to reasonable      restrictions which  the Legislature  might impose,  was      dealt with  by the learned Chief Justice in a sharp and      forceful presentation;           "on this  argument it  will follow  that  criminal      activities undertaken  and carried  on with  a view  to      earning profit  will be protected as fundamental rights      until they  are restricted by law. Thus there will be a      guaranteed right  to carry  on a business of hiring out      goodness to  commit assault  or even  murder, of house-      breaking, of  selling obscene  pictures, of trafficking      in women  and so  on until  the law curbs or stops such      activities.  This   appears  to  us  to  be  completely      unrealistic and  incongruous. We  have  no  doubt  that      there  are   certain  activities  which  can  under  no      circumstances be  regarded  as  trade  or  business  or      commerce although  the usual  forms and instruments are      employed therein.  To exclude those activities from the      meaning of those words is not to cut down their meaning      at all  but to  say only  that they  are not within the      true meaning  of those  words. Learned  Counsel has  to      concede that  there can  be no  ’trade’ or  business in      crime but  submits that  this principle  should not  be      extended .. " (1) Fatehchand  Himmatlal v. Maharashtra [1977] 2 S.C.R. 828 at 839-840. 151

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 29  

         We have  no hesitation,  in  our  hearts  and  our      heads, to   hold that every systematic, profit oriented      activity, how  ever sinister,  suppressive or  socially      diabolic, cannot,  ipso  facto,  exalt  itself  into  a      trade. Incorporation  of Directive  principles of State      policy casting  the high  duty upon the State to strive      to promote  the welfare  of the  people by securing and      protecting as  effectively as  it may a social order in      which justice  social, economic  and  political-  shall      inform all  the institutions  of the  national life, is      not idle  print but  command to  action. We  can  never      forget, except  at our  peril,  that  the  Constitution      obligates the  State to  ensure an  adequate  means  of      livelihood to  its citizens  and to sec that the health      and strength  of workers men and women, are not abused,      that  exploitation,   normal  and  material,  shall  be      extradited. In  short State action defending the weaker      sections  from   social  injustice  and  all  forms  of      exploitation and  raising the standard of living of the      people, necessarily  imply  that  economic  activities,      attired as  trade or  business or  commerce, can be de-      recognised as  trade or  business. At  this point,  the      legal culture  and the  public morals  of a  nation may      merge, economic  justice and  taboo of  traumatic trade      may meet  and jurisprudence may frown upon day dark and      deadly  dealings.   The   Constitutional   refusal   to      consecrate  exploitation  as  ’trade’  in  a  socialist      Republic like ours argues itself."      A precedentral approach to the ultra vires argument.      The single  substantive contention  has  incarnated  as triple constitutional  infirmities. Counsel  argued that the power to make rules fixing the days and hours for closing or keeping  open   liquor  shops  was  wholly  unguided.  Three invalidatory vices  flowed from  this single  flaw viz.  (i) excessive delegation of legislative power, (ii) unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to trade in intoxicants under Art.  19(1) (g), and (iii) arbitrary power to pick and choose, inherently violative of Art. 14.      Assuming the  legality of  the triune lethal blows, the basic  charge   of  uncanalised  and  naked  power  must  be established. We  have already held that the statutory scheme is not  merely fiscal  but also  designed  to  regulate  and reduce  alcoholic   habit.  And,   while   commodities   and situations  dictate   whether  power,   in  given  statutory provisions, is  too plenary to be other than arbitrary or is instinct with inherent limitations, alcohol is so manifestly deleterious that  the nature of the guidelines is written in invisible ink. 152      A brief reference to a few rulings cited by counsel may not be inept.      It  is   true  that   although  the   enactment   under consideration is  more than  five decades  old, its validity can now be assailed on the score of unconstitutionality:           "When India became a sovereign democratic Republic      on 26th  January, 1950, the validity of all laws had to      be tested on the touchstone of the new Constitution and      all laws  made before  the coming  into  force  of  the      Constitution have  to stand the test for their validity      on the provisions of Part Ill of the Constitution.’’(1) This is  why the  principle of excessive delegation, that is to say,  the making over by the legislature of the essential principles of  legislation to another body, becomes relevant in the  present debate.  Under our constitutional scheme the legislature must  retain in  its own  ’hands  the  essential

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 29  

legislative  functions.   Exactly   what   constitutes   the essential legislative functions is difficult to define.           "The legislature  must retain in its own hands the      essential   legislative    function.    Exactly    what      constituted  "essential   legislative  function",   was      difficult to define in general terms, but this much was      clear that  the essential  legislative function must at      least consist  of the  determination of the legislative      policy  and  its  formulation  as  a  binding  rule  of      conduct. Thus  where the  law passed by the legislature      declares the  legislative  policy  and  lays  down  the      standard which  is enacted  into a  rule of law, it can      leave the  task of subordinate legislation which by its      very nature  is ancillary to the statute to subordinate      bodies, i.e.,  the making of rules, regulations or bye-      laws. The  subordinate authority  must do so within the      frame-work of  the law  which makes the delegation. and      such subordinate  legislation has to be consistent with      the law under which it is made and cannot go beyond the      limits of the policy and standard laid down in the law.      Provided the  legislative  policy  is  enunciated  with      sufficient clearness  or a  standard is  laid down, the      courts should  not interfere  with the  discretion that      undoubtedly  rests   with  the  legislature  itself  in      determining the  extent of  delegation necessary  in  a      particular case."(2) (1) Suraj  Mall Mohta  and Co.v.A.V.  Visvanatha Sastri  and another [1955] 1. S.C.R. 448 at 457. (2) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills Delhi & Anr. [1968] 3 S.C.R. 251 at 261 153 In Vasanthlal  Maganbhai Sajanwal  v. The State of Bombay(1) the  same point was made:           "A statute  challenged on  the ground of excessive      delegation  must therefore be subject to two tests, (1)      whether it  delegates essential legislative function or      power and  (2) WHETHER-  the legislature has enunciated      its policy  and  principle  for  the  guidance  of  the      delegate."      Likewise, if  the State  can choose any day or hour for exclusion as  it fancies  and there are no rules to fix this discretion, plainly the provision [Sec.59(f)(v)] must offend against Art.14  of the  Constitution.  (See  Saghir  Ahmed’s case)(2)      Another  aspect   of  unguided   power  to  affect  the citizen’s fundamental  rights in  the province  of  Art.  19 since imposition  of unreasonable  restrictions on the right lo  carry   on  business  is  violative  of  Art.  19(1)(g). Patanjali Sastri, C.J., in V. G. Row’s case observed(2)           "The test  of reasonableness,  wherever prescribed      should l)  applied to  each individual statute impugned      and  no   abstract  standard   or  general  pattern  of      reasonableness can  be Laid  down as  applicable to all      cases. The  nature of  the right  alleged to  have been      infringed, the  underlying purpose  of the  restriction      imposed, the extent or urgency of the evil sought to be      remedied thereby,  the disproportion of imposition, the      prevailing conditions at the time should enter into the      judicial verdict" This Court,  in R.  M. Seshadri,(4)  dealt with unreasonable restrictions on  showing of  films  by  theatre  owners  and struck down  the provisions.  Similarly, in  Harichand(5) an unreasonable restriction  on the  right to  trade was struck down because the regulation concerned provided no principles nor contained any policy and this Court observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 29  

    "A provision  which leaves  an unbridled  power  to  an authority  cannot   in  any   sense  be   characterised   as reasonable.  Section   3  of  the  Regulation  is  one  such provision and  is therefore  liable to  be  struck  down  as violative of Art. 19(1)(g)". (1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 341. (2) [1955] 1 S.c.R. 707. (3) [1952] S.C.R. 597. (4) [1955]1 S.C.R. 686. (S) LALA  Hari Chand  Sarda v.  Mizo District  Council & Anr [1967]1 S.C.R. 1012 11-520 SCI/78 154 other decisions  in the  same strain  were cited.  Indeed an annual shower  of decisions  on this  point issues from this Court. But  the essential  point made  in all these cases is that  unchannelled  and  arbitrary  discretion  is  patently violative of  the requirements  of reasonableness in Art. 19 and of  equality under  Art. 14, a proposition with which no one can  now quarrel.  lt is  in the  application  of  these principles that  disputes arise  as Patanjali  Sastri,  C.J. clarified early  in the  day in  V.  G.  Row’s  case  (cited Supra).   Reasonableness    and   arbitrariness    are   not abstractions  and  must  be  tested  on  the  touchstone  of principle pragmatism and living realism.      It is  in this  context that  the observations  of this Court in Nashirwar(1) become decisive. While considering the soundness of  the propositions  advanced by the advocate for the petitioners  the Additional  Solicitor  General  rightly shielded the  statutory provisions i question by drawing our attention to  the crucial  factor that the subject matter of the  legislation   was  a  deleterious  substance  requiring restrictions in  the direction of moderation in consumption. regulation  regarding   the  days  and  hours  of  sale  and appropriateness in  the matter of the location of the places of sale.  If it  is coal  or mica  or cinema,  the  test  of reasonableness will  be stricter, but if it is an intoxicant or a  killer drug  or a  fire-arm the  restrictions must  be stern. When  the public  purpose is  clear and  the policing need is manifest from the nature of the business itself, the guidelines are  easy to find. Shri Mahajan’s reliance on the Coal Control  Case(’) or  Shri A.  K. Sen’s  reliance on the Gold Control  case (3)is  inept. Coal  and gold are as apart from whisky  and toddy  as cabbages are from kings. Don’t we feel the difference between bread and brandy in the field of trade control ? Life speaks through Law.      Counsel after  counsel has  pressed that  there  is  no guideline for  the exercise  of the power of rule-making and the Addl.  Solicitor General  has  turned  to  the  history, sociology and  criminology relating to liquor. In support of his contention,  Shri Soli  Sorabjee for the State has drawn our attention  to the  following passages in Nashirwar which are quoted  is extenso because of the persistence of counsel on the  other side  in pressing  their point about unbounded power:           "In our  country the  history of excise shows that      the regulations  issued  between  1790-1800  prohibited      manufacture or sale of liquors without a licence from a      Collector. In 1 808 a regulation was introduced in tile      Madras Presidency (1) [1975] 2 S.C.R. 861. (2) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 224. (3) A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1453. 155      Which  provided   that  the   exclusive  privilege   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 29  

    manufacturing and  selling arrack  should be  farmed in      each district. In 1820 the law was amended to authorise      the treatment  of toddy  and other fermented liquors in      the same  way as  spirits  by  allowing  Collectors  to      retain the manufacture and sale under direct management      if deemed  preferable to  farming. In  1884 a Committee      was appointed  to investigate  the excise  system.  The      recommendations of  the Committee  were adopted.  Under      the new  system the  monopoly of  manufacture  was  let      separately from that of sale. The former was granted on      condition of  payment of  a fee per shop or a number of      shops, or on payment of a fee determined by auction. In      the Bombay  Presidency the  monopoly of the retail sale      of spirits  and  the  right  to  purchase  spirits  was      formed. In  1857 the  Government  declared  its  future      policy to  be the letting by auction of each shop, with      its still,  separately. In  1870-71 a  change was made.      The rule  at that time was that the Collector would fix      the number  and locality  of the  different  shops  and      determine  their   letting  value   according  to   the      advantages possessed  by each. It was not intended that      they  should,   as  a   rule,  be   put  up  to  public      competition; but  competition might  be resorted  to by      the Collector and taken into account in determining the      same at  which each would be leased. This rule remained      in force  for many  years. The  practice of putting the      shops up  to  auction  was,  thereafter  followed.  The      history of  excise administration in our country before      the Independence  shows that  there was  originally the      farming system  and thereafter  the central  distillery      system for  manufacture. The retail sale was by auction      of the  right and  privilege of sale. The Government of      India  appointed  an  Excise  Committee  in  1905.  The      measures recommended by the Committee were the advances      of taxation,  the  concentration  of  distillation  the      extended adoption  of the  contract distillery  system.      The  Committee   suggested  among   other  things   the      replacement of  the then  existing excise  law by fresh      legislation on the lines of the Madras Abkari Act. (See      Dr. Pramatha  Nath Banerjee: History of Indian Taxation      P. 470 seq.).           Reference may  be made  to  the  Taxation  Enquiry      Commissioner  Report   1953-54  Vol.  3.  At  page  130      following there is a discussion of State excises. Among      the major sources of revenue which are available to the      State Government  there is  a duty on alcoholic liquors      for human  consumption. At page 132 of the Report it is      stated that in addition 156      to the  excise duties,  licence fees  are  charged  for      manufacture or  sale of  liquor or  for  tapping  toddy      trees etc.  Similarly, several  fees like  permit fees,      vend fees, outstill duties are also levied. Manufacture      or sale  of liquor  is forbidden  except under licences      which are  generally granted  by auction to the highest      bidders. The  manufacture of  country spirit is done in      Government distilleries or under the direct supervision      of the  excise  staff.  All  supplies  are  drawn  from      Government warehouses  which ensures that the liquor is      not more  than of the prescribed strength. The licensed      sellers have  to sell  the country spirit between fixed      hours and  at fixed  selling rates.  As in  the case of      country spirit,  the right of tapping and selling toddy      is also  auctioned. In addition to the licence, in some      States  the   licensee  has   to  pay  a  tree  tax  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 29  

    Government.           Traditionally  tobacco,   opium  and  intoxicating      liquors have been the subject matter of State monopoly.      (See section  IV of  the Madras Regulation XXV of 1 802      relating to  permanent  settlement  of  land  revenue).      Section IV  states that  the Government having reserved      to itself  the entire  exercise of  its  discretion  in      continuing or  abolishing, temporarily  or permanently,      the articles  of revenue  included,  according  to  the      custom and  practice of  the country, under the several      heads inter  alia of  the abkary, or tax on the sale of      spirituous liquors   and  intoxicating  drugs,  of  the      excise on  articles of  consumption, of  taxes personal      and  professional,   as  well  as  those  derived  from      markets, fairs,  or bazars. of lakhiraj lands (or lands      exempt from  the payment of public revenue), and of all      other lands  paying only  favourable  quit  rents,  the      permanent assessment  of the  land-tax  shall  be  made      exclusively of the said articles now recited.           The excise  revenue arising out of manufacture and      sale of  intoxicating liquors  is one of the sources of      State revenue as is customs and excise. In England sale      of intoxicating  liquors although  perfectly lawful  at      common   law    is   subject   to   certain   statutory      restrictions. These  restrictions are  primarily of two      kinds; those  designed for  the orderly  conduct of the      retail trade  and those designed to obtain revenue from      the trade r whether wholesale or retail.           Trade  in  liquor  has  historically  stood  on  a      different footing from other trades. Restrictions which      are  not   permissible  other  trades  are  lawful  and      reasonable so far as the trade 157      in liquor is concerned. That is why even prohibition of      the   trade in  liquor is  not only  permissible but is      also  reasonable.  The  reasons  are  public  morality,      public interest  and harmful and dangerous character of      the liquor.  The State  possesses the right of complete      control  over   all  aspects   of  intoxicants,   viz.,      manufacture,  collection,  sale  and  consumption.  The      State has  sight in order to raise revenue. That is the      view of  this Court  in  Bharucha’s  case  (supra)  and      jaiswal’s case  ( supra)  . The  nature of the trade is      such that the State confers the right to vend liquor by      farming out  either in  auction or  on private  treaty.      Rental is  the consideration  for the privilege granted      by the  Government for manufacturing or vending liquor.      Rental is  neither a  tax nor an excise duty. Rental ii      the  consideration  for  the  agreement  for  grant  of      privilege by the Government." (pp. 869-871) The guide-lines.      Now that  we have  held  that  the  provision  [Section 59(f)(v)] is  valid  on  a  consideration  of  the  criteria controlling the  wide words  used therein  there is  a minor matter remaining  to be  disposed of.  The extract  from the Section, as  will be  noticed, contains a clause which runs: "and the  closure of  such premises  on special  occasions". Thus, rules  may be  made by  the Financial Commissioner for fixing  the   closure  of   licensed  premises  on  ’special occasion’. Shri  Mahajan insisted  that ’special  occasions’ may mean  anything and  may cover  any occasion  dictated by humour, political pressure or other ulterior considerations. It  is  thus  a  blanket  power  which  is  an  unreasonable restriction on  the licensee’s  trade. Certainly if ’special occasions’ means  any occasion  which appeals to the mood of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 29  

the Financial  Commissioner or  has other casual fascination for him  the rule may suffer from arbitrary and unreasonable features. Gandhiji’s  birthday and  also Vinobaji’s birthday have  been   included  in   the  licence   itself.  ’Special occasions’ contemplated  by Sec.  59(f) (v) are not stricken by such  a vice  for the obvious reasons we have elaborately given in the earlier part of our argument. The occasion must be  special   from  the   point  of   view  of   the   bread considerations of  national solemnity.  public order, homage to national figures, the likelihood of eruption of inebriate violence On  certain days  on account of meals, festivals or frenzied  situations   or  periods   of  tension.   Bapuji’s birthday,  election   day,  hours  of  procession  by  rival communities  when   tensions  prevail   or  festivals  where colossal numbers  of people  gather and outbreak of violence is  on   the  agenda,   are  clear  illustrations.  ’Special occasions’ cannot  be equated  with fanciful  occasions  but such as promote the policy of the statute as expounded by us earlier. There  is no  merit in  this argument either and we reject it. 158      As between  temperance and  prohibition it  is a policy decision for  the Administration.  Much may  be said for and against total prohibition as an American wit has cryptically yet sarcastically  summed up(1): "The chief argument against prohibition is  that it  does not prohibit. This is also the chief argument in favour of it."           This survey  of the  law-ways of  Art. 19  and the      police power  is sufficient  in our  view to clinch the      issue.      our conclusions may now be set out.      (a) Section 59(f)(v) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, is perfectly valid;      (b) The  regulation of  the  number  of  days  and  the duration of  the hours  when supply  of alcohol by licensees shall be stopped is quite reasonable, whether it be two days in a  week or  even more.  We leave  open the question as to whether prohibition  of the number of days and the number of hours, if  it reaches  a point of substantial destruction of the right to vend, will be valid, since that question arises in other writ petitions;      (c) The exercise of the power to regulate, including to direct closure  for some  days every  week, being reasonable and calculated  to produce  temperance  and  promote  social welfare, cannot  be invalidated on the imaginary possibility of misuse.  The test of the reasonableness of a provision is not the theoretical possibility of tyranny; and      (d)  There  is  enough  guideline  in  the  scheme  and provisions of  the Punjab  Excise Act to govern the exercise of the power under Secs. 58 and 59.      In a  few beer  bar cases  the grievance  ventilated is regarding the  manipulation of  hours of  sale. Nothing  has been made  out to  hold that the readjustment of the hour of beer-bidding is  unrelated to  the statutory  guidelines  or destructive of the business. We reject the objection.      We have  reasoned enough  to justify  the ways  of  the Constitution and  the law to the consumers of social justice and spirituous  potions. The  challenge fails  and the  Writ Petitions Nos.  4108-4109 tc.,  of 1978 are hereby dismissed with costs  (one hearing  fee). May  we hopefully expect the State  to   bear  true   faith  and   allegiance   to   that Constitutional orphan, Art. 47 ? N V.K                                   Petitions dismissed. (1) "Reconsiderations  H. L.  Meneken-Anti All Kinds of Blah by Lila Ray appeared in "Span" Aug. 1978 p. 41.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 29  

159