Ahmedabad: Gujarat – a dry state since the beginning of the past six decades – wheezing the challenges to maintain their prohibition policies on buying, ownership and consumption of liquor in the state after the Gujarat High Court on Monday rejected the petition questioned, especially in the field Privacy rights.
Chairman of the Chief Judge Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav has decided to assess, in achievement, the petition states the right to drink in private places, opponents permits are given to choose some and disproportional punishment for violations of the ban on prohibition.
The bench wasted the Gujarat government’s argument that the provisions of the Bombay ban were enforced by the Bombay High Court and later by the Supreme Court in 1951 and therefore, every question about the validity of the Law on Gujarat’s prohibition could not be maintained before the High Court , but before the APEX court only.
In the statement of the applicant who did not allow someone to drink in a private place was a violation of his rights on privacy, HC cited the APEX court order and said that SC “acknowledged the ‘rights to privacy’ from citizens of the fundamental rights and the applicants had attacked several provisions in 1949 On the basis that they violated privacy rights.
The same thing has never been tested earlier in the context of private food preferences that are woven in privacy rights.
“Refusing the government’s attitude in non-maintenance of petitions, HC said that the previous challenge was limited, involving prevention of use of alcohol preparation Medical and toilet chemicals only.
The petition is currently questioning the prohibition of import, transfer, ownership and purchasing of liquor, prohibiting someone’s entry in Gujarat in a drunken state, prohibiting the sale of liquor to anyone except permission holders, permission to use warships, troops and in the chaos and canteen of the armed forces.
This question has appeared for the first time, said the court.
For the first time, dry Gujarat to justify his prohibition policy in court
