KERALA LAW ACADEMY CLASS MOOT

PRESENTED BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ANDOPIA

Special Leave Petition number ***/2019

In the matter of

RATANSINGH RATHOD & ORS.

V.

STATE OF SOHAMPURA

Counsels for Appellant:

1
 


{MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page No.

1. Abbreviations used 3
2. Index of Authorities 4-5
3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6
4. Statement of facts 7-9
5. Issues involved 10
6. Summary of Arguments 11-12
7. Written Pleadings 13-21
I- WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE
OR NOT?

II- WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LIQUOR POLICY

IS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION?

III- WHETHER ARTICLE 47 OF THE

CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED OR NOT?

2
8. Prayer 22

ABBREVIATIONS USED
Abbreviations Full Form

¶ Para/Paras

AIR All India Reporter

S. Section

UOI Union Of India

AO Assessing Officer

App. Appropriate

Del Delhi

Pg. Page

Ed. Edition

H.C High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Dist. District

Diff. Difference

Kar. Karnataka

J&K Jammu and Kashmir

Guj Gujarat

3
 Ltd. Limited

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Supp. Supplementary

S. Section

B/w Between

v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

 Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka Appeal (civil) 4708 of 1989

 Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
 Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
 State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007
decided on December 9, 2016.
 Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359
 Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314
 Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241
 C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298
 Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214.
 C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 129
 N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors. (2007) 9 SCC 196
 Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
 Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212.
 Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR
1962 SC 1314.

4
  Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka Appeal (civil) 4708 of 1989
 Natural Resources Allocation, In Re (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77)
 Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191
 Ameronissa v. Mehboob, AIR 1953 SC 771
 Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404
 Vajravellu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, AIR 1965 SC
1017.
 N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers, AIR 1971 S.C. 264
 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors 1985 3 SCC 545
 State of U.P. v Charan Singh AIR (SCW) 2015-0-2615
 Raghubir Singh v General Manager Haryana Roadways SCC 2014 (10) 301

LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra

2. SCC Online

3. West Law

4. Hein Online

LEXICONS
1. Aiyar Ramanathan P , Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.

2. Garner Bryana, Black‟s Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999

BOOKS

 Dr. Das, Durga , “Constitutional Law of India”, 8th Edn. 2008

 M.P Jain ,”Indian Constitutional Law”, 7th edition ,1406
 Basu D.D , Constitution of India ,14th edition 2009, LexisNexis, Butterworths Wadhwa
Publication Nagpur

5
  Seervai H.M. , Constitutional law of India, 4 th Edition 2002, Volume 2, Universal Book
Traders.
 Shukla V.N , Constitution of India, 11th edition 2008, Eastern Book Company

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner herein is Mr. Ratansingh Rathod. Under Art. 136 of the Constitution of Andopia,
this Hon’ble Court has been vested, in its discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India. In this case, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
against the impugned orders of the Hon’ble High Court of . The present memorandum sets forth
the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ratansingh Rathod resides in State of Sohampura (which comes under the territory of Andopia)
where the Sohampura Prohibition Act is enforceable prohibiting and punishing purchase,
possession, transportation and private consumption of alcohol and entry into the state in
intoxicated condition. Ratansingh Rathod and other citizens filed a Public Interest Litigation
under Article – 226 of the Constitution of Andopia at the High Court of Sohampura and the
petitioners have no personal interest. The PIL was filed in the interest of all those people of
Sohampura who wish to have the liquor policy of the state reformulated which is based on
learnings from failure of Act, changed social and economic situations and respectful to the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Andopia and residents of state of Sohampura. It is stated
that the provisions of Sohampura Prohibition Act, 1949 are archaic and requires complete
overhaul and reconsideration in context of the drawbacks/failure of law and the change in the
state of society in last seventy years. It was submitted that while the world including various
states of Andopia embrace change and modernity in thoughts and lifestyle, the People of

7
Sohampura still suffer from protective and authoritarian approach of the state controlling their
dietary preferences. It was submitted that in a number of academic studies and on actual
experience it is found that complete prohibition never works and it on the contrary leads to far
greater social and economic evils. A number of countries and Andopian States have
experimented with complete prohibition and after recognizing its failures, either completely gave
it up or began to regularize it. It was submitted that the experiment of prohibition has completely
failed in the state of Sohampura too and the same may be recognized and instead of making the
enforcement harsher that violate fundamental rights, it may be regulated in public interest. It was
submitted that the current Prohibition Policy is a legacy of the world and thoughts that were
prevalent almost more than 100 years ago and there is a dire need for framing a comprehensive
liquor policy taking into stock the experience of other parts of Andopia and world and the
failures of the Prohibition within Sohampura. It has led to severe social evils such as deaths of
people by consuming adulterated and poisonous alcohol, and world and the failures of the
Prohibition within Sohampura. It was also submitted that even after all the prohibition in law, the
ground reality has repeatedly shown that the liquor is easily available in the State; to the people
serving in armed forces, to the tourists who visit the state, to the residents of the state who’s
health requires them to consume alcohol and those who can afford to find and pay a bootlegger.
It was further submitted that the current legal provisions also violate fundamental rights of the
citizens of Sohampura under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution in as much as it prohibits,
criminalizes and punishes purchase, transport, possession and consumption of liquor in private. It
was therefore submitted that it is imperative that the failures of the current machinery and its
inconsistency with the constitution be recognized and to reconcile the same, a comprehensive
liquor policy may be put in place that regulates the liquor in the State in public interest and
doesn’t encroach on the fundamental rights of the residents of the state. It was further submitted
that Sections 12, 13, 24-1B, 34, 35, 65, 65AA and 66 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949, in as
much as prohibit and punish purchase, possession, transportation and private consumption of
alcohol and entry into the state in intoxicated condition, they are manifestly arbitrary and violate
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is also submitted that purchase, transport and
possession for private consumption of alcohol cannot be crimes for there is no victim.

The State of Sohampura, defended the vires of the said Act, inter alia, on the following grounds
namely:

8
a. Every Fundamental Right is subject to reasonable restrictions.

b. Fundamental Rights cannot be read in isolation but along with the Directive Principles
and Fundamental Duties. The Petitioners cannot seek violation of Fundamental rights
when a

Legislation seeks to achieve a “Compelling Public Interest” as envisaged in Article 47 of

the Constitution of ANDOPIA.

c. Reasonable restrictions in implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy should

be upheld as being in Public Interest and individual interest must yield to the same.

The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the validity of the Sohampura Prohibition Act, 1949
on the ground that it is not violating Fundamental Rights and under Directive Principles
of State Policy, the state has the power to make the regulation with regard to the
prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks which are injurious to health. Being
aggrieved by the said decision, a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is filed before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of ANDOPIA.

9
 ISSUES RAISED

I- WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER

ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

10
 II- WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LIQUOR POLICY IS
VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION?

III- WHETHER ARTICLE 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS

VIOLATED OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

11
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the Special Leave Petition filed
by the petitioner, Mr. Rattansingh Rathod is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial
question of law of general public importance. The arbitrary and hasty judgment of the HC
uphelding the validity of the Sohampura Prohibition Act, 1949 on the ground that it is not
violating Fundamental Rights and under Directive Principles of State Policy would result in
miscarriage of justice and if the Supreme Court does not intervene, it will result in gross
injustice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court should therefore, applying its wide jurisdiction conferred
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, use corrective measures to correct the wrong done
by the decision of the High Court of Sohampura.

II WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LIQUOR POLICY IS VIOLATIVE OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the impugned liquor policy is
violative of the Constitution. It is violative of the Constitution as it violates Article 14, Article 19
and Article 21 of the Constitution. While other States have expressly and more precisely allowed
the purchase, trade and production of liquor1, it is simply one state that prohibits such things
which is a violation of Article 14, that is right to equality. this Act completely prohibits the
manufacture, import, export and transport of liquor/alcohol completely and thus, it is an
infringement of right of occupation ( as envisaged in Article 19 1 g) of the people engaged in
such business. There will be abundant loss of income and source of livelihood to people working
in this industry. Many people work in these production/distribution/selling shops and they will
loose their job. So, now government will have to rehabilitate them and some people who are
specialized in this field will have to either find jobs outside India or learn new skills. In this case
the people who have been engaged in the trade of manufacturing, processing and trading of
alcohol have been deprived of their livelihood which comes under the right to life as enshrined in
Article 21.

III WHETHER ARTICLE 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED OR NOT?

1
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka Appeal (civil) 4708 of 1989

12
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that allowing liquor shops and alcohol would
not pave way for infringement of the Article 47 of the Constitution. 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.

The entry 51 in the State List makes “Alcohol for human consumption” a subject matter of
states. This provides states the power to make laws and charge duties on alcoholic liquors for
human consumption. Thus, each state has its own laws, bylaws and rules towards alcohol. Due to
this, legal age of drinking, taxes on liquor and procedure of doing liquor business differ from
state to state.

13
 WRITTEN PLEADINGS
I. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 IS
MAINTAINABLE.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, the Special Leave Petition filed by the
petitioner, Mr. Ratansingh Rathod is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question
of law of general public importance. If the Supreme Court does not intervene, it will result in
gross injustice and that, miscarriage of justice has already occurred, by the erring judgment of
the HC of Sohampura. The Hon’ble Supreme Court should therefore, applying its wide
jurisdiction conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, use corrective measures to
correct the wrong done by the decision of the High Court of Sohampura.

 THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT

It is humbly submitted before this Honourable SC that the appellant has locus standi to approach
the Honourable SC in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest
phraseology.2

This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. The plenitude of power under Article
136 of the Constitution has been authoritatively stated by the Constitution Bench in Durga
Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors.3 and the exercise of the said power by the
Court cannot be curtailed by the original constitutional provision or by any statutory provision.4

 THE MATTER INVOLVES QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC

IMPORTANCE

2
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
3
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520
4
State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007 decided on
December 9, 2016.

14
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on
the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive one5 and can be invoked when a question of law of
general public importance arises,6 by filing Special Leave Petition. It is well-settled that illegality
must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to interfere with the same would
amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated,7 therefore a duty is enjoined upon the SC to
exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments. Article 136 provides residuary
power to the SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that injustice has been done. 8 Illegality
should not be allowed to be perpetrated merely for the sake of upholding technicalities.9

It is submitted that the current Prohibition Policy is a legacy of the world and thoughts that were
prevalent almost more than 100 years ago and there is a dire need for framing a comprehensive
liquor policy taking into stock the experience of other parts of ANDOPIA and world and the
failures of the Prohibition within Sohampura. It has led to severe social evils such as deaths of
people by consuming adulterated and poisonous alcohol, loss of state revenue and economic
opportunities, Rampant Corruption at various levels within and outside government machinery,
Women of the state taking up illegal trade of bootlegging, Hypocrisy and degradation of moral
standards amongst society in general and absolute stigma against the word of “alcohol”. It was
also submitted that even after all the prohibition in law, the ground reality has repeatedly shown
that the liquor is easily available in the State; to the people serving in armed forces, to the
tourists who visit the state, to the residents of the state who’s health requires them to consume
alcohol and those who can afford to find and pay a bootlegger.

It has been held by this Hon’ble Court that when a question of law of general public importance
arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can always be invoked.

5
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359
6
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314
7
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of
India, Vol. 1, 832 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010); See also, Halsbury’s Laws of
India, Vol. 35, 564 (2nd ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2007).
8
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of
India, Vol. 2, 845 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010)
9
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214.

15
Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is
injustice.10

 THE MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND GROSS

INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

It is humbly submitted by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court that, the matter involves
substantial question of law as it concerns the violation of fundamental right of livelihood of the
people of Andopia and gross injustice has already been meted out by the decision of HC of
Sohampur, which has hastily and arbitrarily declared it as a common law right. Lakhs of workers
who dealt with alcohol trade were rendered jobless in a span of few day by this law.

Where findings are entered without considering relevant materials and without following proper
legal procedure, the interference of the Supreme Court is called for.11 The expression "substantial
question of law" is not defined in any legislation. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite
connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court,
while explaining the import of the said expression, observed that: “The proper test for
determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be
whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the
rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally
settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty
or calls for discussion of alternative views.”12

Hence, the case involves the matter of general public importance and it directly and substantially
affects the rights of the citizens as the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
general public. It is humbly submitted that substantial and grave injustice has been done to the
rights of the citizens of Sohampura and that the case in question presents features of sufficient
gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.

10
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors. (2007) 9
SCC 196; Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
11
Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212.
12
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314.

16
II- THE IMPUGNED LIQUOR POLICY IS VIOLATIVE OF THE

CONSTITUTION.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the impugned liquor policy is
violative of the Constitution. It is violative of the Constitution as it violates Article 14, Article 19
and Article 21 of the Constitution. The negatives of banning alcohol are quite high. some of them
are:

1. Banning alcohol will make it illegal. That means costly, no quality checks, smuggling
will be on the rise again. If a person is spending X Rs on alcohol today, after ban it will
be X+Y Rs. So, the intention of government that money will go home instead of liquor
shops will not work. In stead more money will go out of home.
2. Right now, there are quality checks that have to be adhered to for alcohol. Once it s
banned, no more quality checks. Increase in bad liquor which will be more harmful for
health of people and may lead to death due to alcohol poisoning.
3. Rise in organized crimes and criminal/smuggling syndicates and going by media
reports, any syndicate (drug, land, illegal mining…) will kill people including officials
if they meddle with them.
4. Rise in corruption as people will try to bribe if they are caught either drinking or
selling alcohol. Which means rise in black money and another loss to government
(bribe money to individuals rather than fines to government)
5. Loss of income and source of livelihood to people working in this industry. Many
people work in these production/distribution/selling shops and they will loose their job.
So, now government will have to rehabilitate them and some people who are
specialized in this field will have to either find jobs outside India or learn new skills.
6. Loss of income to the government and that too from a source on which it can raise
prices and taxes and these guys will not say a word against the government. So,
eventually it means less money in the treasury and thus less money to spend on welfare
schemes.

17
 a) Liquor ban is violative of Article 14

While other States have expressly and more precisely allowed the purchase, trade and production
of liquor13, it is simply one state that prohibits such things which is a violation of Article 14, that
is right to equality.

Article 14 states, “Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”

The main objective of Article 14 is to secure to all persons, citizens or noncitizens, the equality
of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution.14 Article 14 ensures to
every person equality before law and equal protection of law.

 TEST OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION

While Article 14 allows reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation it forbids any
sort of class legislation15. The test of reasonable classification was laid down by SC in
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, which provides that the classification proposed in the
legislation must be founded on intelligible differentia.

 INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

There is no intelligible differentia in this case. The contention that the defendants gave is that
the impugned order is passed keeping in mind the Directive principle of state policy, Article
47 and in interest of public but how can a law be only in interest of a particular public and if
it is really in interest of public then why did it is not imposed in all other states. Hence, it is
submitted that it does not contain any intelligible differentia.

b) Impugned order is violative of Article 19

13
Khoday Distilleries Ltd vs State Of Karnataka Appeal (civil) 4708 of 1989
14
Natural Resources Allocation, In Re (2012) 10 SCC 1 (77)
15
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191; See also, Ameronissa v. Mehboob, AIR 1953
SC 71; Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404; Vajravellu Mudaliar v. Special
Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, AIR 1965 SC 1017.

18
It is humbly submitted that under article 19(1)g guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to
practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The state can:
a) Impose reasonable restriction on this right,16
b) Prescribe professional or technical qualification necessary for practicing any Profession, trade
or business.

Section 12 of Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 states that,

“No person shall- (a) manufacture liquor ;

(b) construct or work any distillery or brewery;

(c) import, export, transport or possess liquor; or

(d) sell or buy liquor”

Section 13 of the Act states, “No person shall— (a) bottle any liquor for sale ; (b) consume or
use liquor ; or (c) use, keep or have in his possession any materials, still, utensils, implements or
apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of any liquor.”

Hence, this Act completely prohibits the manufacture, import, export and transport of
liquor/alcohol completely and thus, it is an infringement of right of occupation ( as envisaged in
Article 19 1 g) of the people engaged in such business.

There will be abundant loss of income and source of livelihood to people working in this
industry. Many people work in these production/distribution/selling shops and they will loose
their job. So, now government will have to rehabilitate them and some people who are
specialized in this field will have to either find jobs outside India or learn new skills.

It is also submitted that the restrictions imposed by the State are not in the interest of public and
are unreasonable and thus cannot be saved by Art 19(6). Further it is submitted that such
freedom of trade and profession could only be restricted as provided under Art 19 (6) which
clearly states that only if there is a public interest the reasonable restrictions may be imposed. In
the present case there is no public interest involved and thus the Act is arbitrary.

16
N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers, AIR 1971 S.C. 264

19
Instead, it is humbly submitted that such prohibition on the freedom of trade and profession is
acting counterproductive considering the many instances stated in the factsheet. The enforcement
of the prohibition Act, led to a black market of illegally manufactured alcohol.

c) Impugned order is violative of Article 21

The Act and Amendment is also violative of Right to Livelihood as protected under Article 21.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case17 held, “Upon that assumption, the question
which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see
only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by
Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or
taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except
according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally
important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the
means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part
of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be
to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not
only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life
impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the
procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to
life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be
deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to
livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.”

The same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
U.P. vs Charan Singh18 and Raghubir Singh vs General Manager Haryana Roadways.19

Hence, in this case the people who have been engaged in the trade of manufacturing, processing
and trading of alcohol have been deprived of their livelihood which comes under the right to life
as enshrined in Article 21.

17
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors 1985 3 SCC 545
18
State of U.P. v Charan Singh AIR (SCW) 2015-0-2615
19
Raghubir Singh v General Manager Haryana Roadways SCC 2014 (10) 301

20
III- ARTICLE 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT VIOLATED.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that allowing liquor shops and alcohol would
not pave way for infringement of the Article 47 of the Constitution. 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.

The entry 51 in the State List makes “Alcohol for human consumption” a subject matter of
states. This provides states the power to make laws and charge duties on alcoholic liquors for
human consumption. Thus, each state has its own laws, bylaws and rules towards alcohol. Due to
this, legal age of drinking, taxes on liquor and procedure of doing liquor business differ from
state to state.

Article 47 suggests State to impose restrictions keeping in view the public health. In the present
case, in case of alcohol consumption, the State is trying to impose restrictions on public’s dietary
routines which is infringing their privacy and not reasonable restrictions and hence, State is
definitely unnecessarily interfering into the privacy and dietary habits of people. There are
prescribed age groups for liquor consumption in various states and in this case too, where general
public are themselves aware of what they are buying and drinking in such a case, there is no
victim.

It was submitted that while the world including various states of Andopia embrace change and
modernity in thoughts and lifestyle, the People of Sohampura still suffer from protective and
authoritarian approach of the state controlling their dietary preferences. It was submitted that in a
number of academic studies and on actual experience it is found that complete prohibition never
works and it on the contrary leads to far greater social and economic evils. A number of
countries and Andopian States have experimented with complete prohibition and after
recognizing its failures, either completely gave it up or began to regularize it. It was submitted
that the experiment of prohibition has completely failed in the state of Sohampura too and the
same may be recognized and instead of making the enforcement harsher that violate fundamental
rights, it may be regulated in public interest. It was submitted that the current Prohibition Policy

21
is a legacy of the world and thoughts that were prevalent almost more than 100 years ago and
there is a dire need for framing a comprehensive liquor policy taking into stock the experience of
other parts of Andopia and world and the failures of the Prohibition within Sohampura. It has led
to severe social evils such as deaths of people by consuming adulterated and poisonous alcohol,
and world and the failures of the Prohibition within Sohampura.

22
 PRAYER

Wherefore it is prayed, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
that this Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold that:

1. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

2. The impugned order violates the Constitution.

3. Article 47 is not violated.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of

Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Sd/-

Counsels for Petitioners

23