1996 (3) TMI 525 - SC - Indian Laws

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Law Validated: Court Dismisses Challenge

STATE OF AP. Versus MCDOWELL & CO.

The Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh Legislature's competence to prohibit liquor manufacture under Entry 8 of List-II, finding no violation of Articles 14 ... Constitutional validity of act questioned - Held that:- The attack upon the constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act 35 of 1995 both on the grounds of legislative incompetence and violation of fundamental rights fails . The Amending Act, which has been given retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the Principal Act, i.e., Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, is constitutionally valid. The writ petitions challenging its validity are accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legislative Competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to Prohibit Manufacture of Liquor.2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.4. Validity of Exemptions Provided in the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legislative Competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to Prohibit Manufacture of Liquor:The primary issue was whether the Andhra Pradesh Legislature had the legislative competence to prohibit the manufacture of liquor. The petitioners argued that the State Legislature was denuded of its power to license and regulate the manufacture of liquor due to the enactment of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (I.D.R. Act), which included fermentation industries under its First Schedule. The Court, however, held that the power to make a law with respect to the 'production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors' lies with the State Legislature under Entry 8 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule. The Court emphasized that Entry 8 is a specific entry relating to industries engaged in the production and manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and thus, the State Legislature is competent to enact laws prohibiting such activities.2. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India:The petitioners contended that the prohibition of manufacture and production of liquor while allowing certain exemptions was arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violating Article 14. The Court held that the prohibition policy was not arbitrary or discriminatory. It noted that the exempted categories constituted a fraction of the total consuming population, and the State's decision to import the required quantities rather than allowing local production was reasonable. The Court also emphasized that the State could introduce prohibition in stages and that the classification of toddy as distinct from other intoxicating liquors was reasonable.3. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:The petitioners argued that the prohibition of manufacture of liquor infringed upon their fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). The Court reiterated the position established in previous judgments, particularly Khoday Distilleries, that there is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquors. The Court held that trade in intoxicating liquors is considered res extra commercium (outside commerce), and the State has the power to completely prohibit such trade in the interest of public health as mandated by Article 47 of the Constitution.4. Validity of Exemptions Provided in the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act:The petitioners challenged the validity of the exemptions provided under Section 15 of the Act, arguing that they were discriminatory. The Court held that this argument was not open to the manufacturers of intoxicating liquors. The exemptions were considered reasonable and necessary for specific categories, such as foreigners, non-resident Indians, tourists, and for medicinal and sacramental purposes. The Court declined to entertain the argument regarding the discriminatory nature of exemptions, stating that it would be a different matter if affected individuals complained of such discrimination.Conclusion:The Court upheld the legislative competence of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature to enact the prohibition on the manufacture of liquor, finding it within the scope of Entry 8 of List-II. The prohibition did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The exemptions provided in the Act were also deemed reasonable and valid. The writ petitions challenging the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995, were dismissed, and the civil appeals became academic in light of the retrospective effect given to the Amending Act.