A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of Indian and Ors] to seek directions to Delhi Government upon prohibiting the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, which are injurious to health, in order to secure right to health, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Capital of Delhi has recently been in light due to its new alcohol Policies that aimed at a three-fold rise in the number of liquor stores. The National Capital also witnessed a vague discount and buy one get one free offer running blatantly on alcohol bottles since few weeks.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay requested through his plea that the Court seeks direction to State Government to carry out ‘Health Impact Assessment’ and ‘Environment Impact Assessment’ of production distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in spirit of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution.
Article 21 talks about the ‘Protection of life and personal liberty’. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 47 of the Indian Constitution says that it is the “Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”
Petitioner also seeks direction to the government to publish ‘Health Warning’ on Liquor Bottles and Packages, alike the warning sign used on Cigarette packets, and advertise ‘Health and Environment Hazard’ of intoxicating drinks through electronic, print and social media in order to secure citizen’s right to know, right to information and right to health, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner submits that rather than taking steps to prohibit/control production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, State government in last seven years has made Delhi as Liquor Capital of India. State is under massive debt of around twenty thousand crores since ruling political party promised freebies before election and therefore to sustain financial crisis, it is giving license to open liquor shops not only in the residential areas and main markets but also near hospitals, schools and temples under garb of providing easy access to liquor shops.
Petitioner submits that Delhi has total 280 municipal wards and until 2015, there were only 250 liquor shops i.e. on an average, one liquor shop in every municipal ward and 30 wards without a single liquor shop.
However, under the New Liquor Policy, State government is planning to drastically increase the number of liquor shops and it would be around three liquor shops in every municipal ward, which is not only arbitrary and irrational but also brazenly offends rule of law as well as right to health guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Article 47 is nevertheless fundamental and State is obligated to prohibit consumption of liquor-drugs but rather than advertising about health hazards of intoxicating drinks and drugs, State is promoting liquor consumption, highlighted Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay.
“According to World Health Organization, India is home to world’s 12% smoking population and approximately 9,00,000. people die every year in India due to smoking. Drinking 5 or more drinks per week is considered excessive drinking for women, while 10 drinks or more per week is deemed to be excessive for men. A healthy limit for drinking is usually no more than 2 drinks (2 units of alcohol) a day for men and 1 drink (1 units) a day for women. Binge drinking means having 3 or more drinks for men and 2 or more drinks for women on one occasion. Certain groups of people should not drink alcohol at all. These include young people under the age of 18, pregnant women, people with certain health conditions, patients on medication that will interact with alcohol, recovering alcoholics, and people who intend to drive or do activities that require attention and coordination. Heavy drinking can lead to many serious health conditions and even the binge drinking can cause immediate problems
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), issued a notification on March 19, 2018, directing alcoholic beverage manufacturers to put on labels: “Consumption of alcohol is injurious to health”; and “Be safe: Don’t drink and drive”.
SIMILAR CITATIONS:
BURRABAZAR FIRE WORKS DEALERS’ ASSOCIATION CASE [AIR 1998 CAL 121] The Court held that Article 19(1) (g) does not guarantee any freedom at the cost of the community’s safety, health and peace.
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1984 SC 812 In the case, the Supreme Court held that although the Directive Principles of State Policy are not binding obligations but hold only persuasive value, yet they should be duly implemented by the State. Further, the Court held that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and liberty under Article 21.
SUGAR WORKS LTD. V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (2001) 3 SCC 635. Specific policies dictating liquor trade within National Capital Territory of Delhi made under Punjab Excise Act, 1914, were challenged in this case.
KHODAY DISTILLERIES LTD. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (1995) 1 SCC 574 This case provided one of the landmarks judgments as far as the right to trade liquor is concerned. Primarily, this case challenged the constitutional validity of the following Rules: Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) (Amendment) Rules, 1989, Karnataka Excise (Manufacture of Wine from Grapes) (Amendment) Rules, 1989, Karnataka Excise (Brewery) (Amendment) Rules, 1989, Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989, Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1989, Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules, 1974, and Andhra Pradesh
In STATE OF BOMBAY v. F.N BALSARA AIR 1951 SC 318, the constitutionality of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, was challenged which prohibited manufacture trade transport possession of liquor. Petitioner contended that it infringed his rights to: possess, consume and use medicated wine, whisky, beer, eau-de-cologne, etc.; import and export liquor; purchase, consume, possess or use any stock of foreign liquor, medicinal preparations containing alcohol, etc.
IN HAR SHANKAR v. THE DY. EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMR. & ORS, [1975] 1 SCC 737, There is no fundamental right to do trade or business in intoxicants. The State, under its regulatory powers, has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants – its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. In all their manifestations, these rights are vested in the State and indeed without such vesting there can be no effective regulation of various forms of activities in relation to intoxicants.
