State power to prohibit intoxicating liquor upheld despite industrial control and constitutional equality challenges

Entry 8 of List II gives the State exclusive power over intoxicating liquor, and that specific field prevails over the general industrial entry in Entry 24 of List II read with Entry 52 of List I. The Union declaration under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act did not oust State competence, and Article 47 reinforced the power to impose prohibition. Trade in intoxicating liquor is not an absolute fundamental right, so the prohibition could stand despite challenges under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The exemption scheme, including separate treatment of toddy and staged prohibition, was not shown to be unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence to prohibit the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquors notwithstanding the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act and the Union's declaration relating to industries. (ii) Whether the impugned prohibition and allied exemptions were invalid for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence to prohibit the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquors notwithstanding the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act and the Union's declaration relating to industries.

Analysis: Entry 8 of List II expressly covers production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. The field occupied by Entry 24 of List II, read with Entry 52 of List I, is distinct and general, whereas Entry 8 is specific and special. Applying the rule that the special entry prevails over the general, industries engaged in intoxicating liquor fall within Entry 8 and not within Entry 24. The Union declaration under Entry 52 and the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act do not displace the State's exclusive power in this field. Article 47 reinforces the State's power to impose prohibition.

Conclusion: The State Legislature was competent to enact a law prohibiting the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquors.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned prohibition and allied exemptions were invalid for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: Trade in intoxicating liquor is not an absolute fundamental right and may be completely prohibited in view of its harmful nature and the directive principle in Article 47. The Court held that the impugned law could not be struck down merely on a general allegation of arbitrariness. The exemptions were not shown to create unconstitutional discrimination; toddy was treated as a separate class, and the policy of staged prohibition was permissible. The challenge based on Article 19(1)(g) also failed because no enforceable fundamental right to deal in intoxicants exists.

Conclusion: The prohibition and the exemption scheme were not unconstitutional under Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).

Final Conclusion: The amendment prohibiting manufacture and production of intoxicating liquors was upheld as a valid exercise of State legislative power, and the constitutional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State may, under Entry 8 of List II read with Article 47, validly prohibit the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquor, and such prohibition is not invalid merely because Parliament has declared control over connected industries or because exemptions are provided within the prohibition regime.

---