The state government on Thursday submitted to Gujarat High Court that the 'Right to Privacy' cannot be allowed to be placed at a higher pedestal that under its guise people can start breaking the laws of the land. The submission came in response to multiple petitions demanding freedom to consume alcohol at private places citing that the Gujarat Prohibition Act is in contravention of Right to Privacy.
The state government on Thursday submitted a detailed affidavit of 121 pages opposing the petitions. It has pointed out that Right to Privacy in any manner does not imply that others are inconvenienced.
The government has also submitted that it has the powers under Article 47 of the Constitution to prohibit the sale, manufacture, distribution, and consumption of alcohol. It has also been contended by the government that the petitioners fail to see that the prohibition policy has an intricate connection with public health and public order. It has been claimed that it is the government's responsibility to raise the standard of living and improve public health by prohibiting consumption of alcohol.
The government has also submitted that allowing the plea of the petitioners would make liquor available to weaker sections. This, in-turn would give rise to social evils such as domestic violence within the "same private space".
With regard to the strict punishment under the Act for consumption as well as bootlegging, the government has pointed out that the same was done to ensure effective implementation of prohibition as an advancement of technology has made it easier for bootleggers and individuals to engage in sale, purchase, and transportation of liquor from neighbouring states.
The government has also cited reports published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Lancet Journal which provide that though moderate drinking has a few health benefits, the same are outweighed by the numerous ways in which consuming alcohol can affect the health of an individual. The government has also cited the viewpoint of Mahatma Gandhi on the subject as published in weekly journals during the freedom struggle.
Citing a 2016 report of WHO, the government has contended that Indians consumed 2.4 litre of alcohol in 2005, which increased to 4.3 litre in 2010, and scaled up to 5.7 litre in 2016. Further, the highest increase in alcohol consumption is expected in Southeast Asia, with an increase of 2.2 litres in India alone from 2005 to 2016. The report also provided that more than 3 million people have died across the globe as a result of the harmful use of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol has caused more than 5% of the global disease burden.
What the petitioners claimed?
The petitioners had submitted to the court that alcohol comes under the definition of 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and in light of the recent Supreme Court judgments on Right to Privacy and Right to Choice, prohibition on the consumption of alcohol in one's own privacy cannot be held illegal. They had also argued that every person has a right to choose what he wants to eat and drink, and the government has no business in interfering in the same.
The petitioners had contended that there had been a sea change in the circumstances as compared to the situation prevailing in the 1950s when the ban was imposed. It was pointed out that the prohibition law violates the petitioners' Right to Privacy, Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They had submitted that the state has no business in intruding in a person's private matters unless he creates a situation that endangers social security. Another argument was that the consumption of liquor is a prehistoric tradition for humans and denying it is against one's right to live a dignified and quality life.
