Kerala High Court’s witty judgment gives green signal to regulations on alcohol [Read judgment]

A judgment by the Kerala High Court on the liquor policy of the State has caught the eye of legal fraternity for its witty take on the petitioner and his challenge..The judgment, which is replete with case laws, foreign jurisprudence and even quotes from Bob Dylan has been authored by Justice Dama Sheshadri Naidu with Justice PR Ramachandra Menon concurring with him..The petitioner, Anoop had challenged the policy of the State government, by which the Government has decided to shut down the retail outlets in a phased manner—10% of retail outlets to be closed annually..The judgment begins as follows:.“To drink or not to drink. That is the Hamletian dilemma of Anoop, the appellant. He has chosen to drink. He rails at the rules that obstruct his passion for the pint, his right to choose, to be let alone, to privacy, and, of all, his right to life. He claims that the laws prohibiting alcoholic drinks fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen, to him. Do they? Our answer: No.”.The judgment then cites the contentions of the petitioner including violation of right to life and privacy, proceeds to answer them..“A self-proclaimed hardworking individual takes liquor on a daily-basis and claims that he thus finds his relaxation. The Government, in 2015, introduced a New Liquor Policy to usher in prohibition in a phased manner, though. It has decided to close the liquor retail outlets, a State’s monopoly, at 10% annually. Does the New Policy infringe on the petitioner’s right to choose, right to privacy, or right to life?”.Below are a few excerpts from the judgment..Regarding right to privacy.“The existence of the evil as well as the means adopted to check it are the matters for the legislative judgment. But the Court may consider whether the degree and mode of the regulation is over the requirement or is imposed in an arbitrary manner… Touching on Article 21, the Court has held that it guarantees the minimum of the needs of existence including a better tomorrow—perhaps, not a bibulous one..….we find no proposition that right to privacy is unfettered and that it brooks no restrictions—even reasonable ones, at that. We regret that none lays down that privacy, an individual right, prevails over the social welfare, a collective right.”.Does Total Prohibition Offend the Citizen’s Fundamental Right under Article 21?.“In Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of a total prohibition, reiterated that “regulation” includes “prohibition” and in order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to balance the direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens as against the greater public or social interest sought to be ensured. Implementation of the directive principles in Part IV is within the expression of “restriction in the interests of the general public”..Alcohol – The Evolutionary Essence.“Scientists speculate that the human ancestors’ ability, acquired millions of years ago, to break down alcohol likely helped them make the most out of rotting, fermented fruit that fell onto the forest floor. One may wonder how innocuously the habit started, as usual, as part of our evolutionary mission: the survival. Alcohol is at best an acquired taste. Pernicious as it is, some scholars have attributed to alcohol the credit of advancing civilization, though we cannot be sure what “civilization” they meant. The ripest fruit is the sweetest, the most calorific; the sweetest fruit is the closest to getting rotten, fermented. So, the tell-tale scent of fermentation was the surest way to a food at its most calorific. That is how the journey began. Man has gone past the calorie count; an evolutionary device has outlived its utility; and, perhaps, reached a pernicious stage of futility.”.Concluding solace.The Court while dismissing the case has offered solace to Anoop taking assistance from Boby Dylan in the process..“But, before parting with the matter, we acknowledge that “the times they are a-changing.” What is today morally reprehensible and socially unacceptable may not be so tomorrow. Anoop, the appellant, may still have hope, but he seems to have raised his voice rather prematurely. .We conclude with the lines of Bob Dylan, the Nobel laureate:.“[A]nd don’t speak too soon.For the wheel’s still in spin.And there’s no telling who that it’s naming.For the loser now will be later to win.Cause the times they are a-changing”.You can read the judgment below.