It has been written by Sonal Rai, a second-year law student of Innovative Institute of Law, Greater Noida.

Introduction:

The case of State of Bombay and Others v. F.N. Balsara[1] is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India. It addressed the conflict between the law passed by the state legislation and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The main issue was whether the state had the authority to prohibit alcohol and whether such a ban would infringe upon citizens' fundamental rights. The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, sought a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol in the state of Bombay. The Act was challenged in the court that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 19(6), and 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to equality, the right to freedom, and the right to life and personal liberty according to the procedure established by law. The respondents argued that the ban violated these fundamental rights. The case mainly addresses the interpretation of the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution.

Background Facts:

The petitioner F.N. Balsara moved to the High Court and invoked the writ of mandamus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the State of Bombay and the Prohibition Commissioner to restrain the order of enforcement of the Prohibition Act provisions against him. Then this order was appealed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner also prayed for similar relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court declared that some of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 are invalid and the rest to be valid. The court agreed with some of the petitioner’s contentions and not all. The Bombay Prohibition Act,1949 was passed by the legislature of the Province of Bombay as it was constituted 1949. The act was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on 20th May 1949 and the date of enforcement was 16th June 1949. However, the petitioner dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Constitution challenging the act to be unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights of the individuals.[2]

Issues:

i. Whether the state had the authority to enforce such a prohibition under the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution?

ii. Whether the appeal filed under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution upheld the High Court decision and determined that the impugned Act violated the fundamental rights of individuals and could be declared unconstitutional? [3]

Arguments raised:

Petitioners: The petitioner argued that the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 exceeded state legislative powers, violated fundamental rights under Article 19 by imposing an unreasonable alcohol ban, and arbitrarily favored military personnel over civilians. They questioned the High Court's judgment on specific provisions declared void.

Respondents: The respondents argued that the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was within state jurisdiction, did not infringe on Union or Concurrent Lists, and made reasonable classifications. They asserted the Act aimed at public welfare, did not violate Article 14, and did not arbitrarily interfere with personal liberties under Article 21.

Judicial Reasoning:

The Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of the State of Bombay and Others v. F.N. Balsara addressed the constitutionality of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 which imposed a ban on the trade of alcohol and its consumption. The core issues which the Supreme Court dealt with were raised by the petitioner whether the state acted outside its purview by passing such a law in the subjects enlisted under the union list. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the act and concluded that the act was inside the state’s authority and that the state has the due authority to pass such a law with the measure to ensure public health and welfare.

Regarding the fundamental rights, the court upheld that the act does not infringe the fundamental rights as the restrictions were imposed to serve a broader purpose for the public interest to achieve public welfare. The Supreme Court stated that all reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fundamental rights according to Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. The court further declared that the act did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India since the provision was enacted according to the legal procedure established by law.

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed that the state has the due authority to enact laws related to serving the broader public interest and strike a balance between individual rights and state regulation for the welfare of all its citizens in the country.

Analysis:

This case concerned the rights of the petitioner to practice any profession or occupation of the manufacture, sale, and consumption of alcohol and import and export of alcohol in the state of Bombay. The state legislature enacted an act named the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 which prohibits alcohol and its trade. The petitioner exercised his right to issue a writ of mandamus guaranteed under Article 32 before the High Court of Bombay. The writ highlights the jurisdictional limits of the authority in exercising its powers. The Supreme Court determined the scope of state legislative lists and the importance of a balance between fundamental rights and personal liberties. The ruling undermined the power of the state authority to impose reasonable restrictions to serve the public welfare in the state. The judgment serves as an example to such measures that will take place in the future.

Conclusion:

The pronouncement of judgment that such restrictions can be imposed on fundamental rights serves a larger purpose to the general public and the importance of such acts passed by the state legislature to achieve public good. The court concluded in its judgment the reasons and the measures highlighted by the state legislature while enacting such a law. It claims that the fundamental rights are rigid yet also flexible enough to reasonable constraints according to the procedure established by law. It highlighted how state laws can limit the personal freedoms of individuals and the individual can move to the court whenever any question of law arises in the enactment of laws. The judgment highlight the importance of ensuring that fundamental rights are not violated while keeping in mind the personal freedoms of individuals aligning with constitutional principles.

References:

1. Our Legal World, https://www.ourlegalworld.com/state-of-bombay-and-ors-v-f-n-balsara-case-analysis/ , Last Visited (August 7, 2024)

2. Studocu, https://www.studocu.com/in/document/dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-marathwada-university/practicum-case-history/state-of-bombay-v-fn-balsara-air-1951-sc-318/72481709 , Last Visited (August 7, 2024)

[1] State Of Bombay And Another Vs. F.N. Balsara 1951 AIR 318

[2] The Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/334293/, (Last Visited July 27, 2024)

[3] Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/1182.pdf, (Last Visited July 27, 2024)