State of Bombay v FN Balsara
🧑⚖️ Case Name: State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
📅 Citation: AIR 1951 SC 318
🏛️ Court: Supreme Court of India
⚖️ Bench: Chief Justice Harilal Kania, Justice M.C. Mahajan, Justice B.K. Mukherjea, Justice S.R. Das, and others
🗓️ Date of Judgment: May 26, 1951
✅ Background:
This was one of the early constitutional law cases in independent India and revolved around the right to trade and the validity of prohibition laws.
🧾 Facts of the Case:
The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 imposed a complete ban on the sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol in the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra).
F.N. Balsara, a Parsi businessman, held a permit under the act but challenged various provisions of the Act on constitutional grounds.
He argued that the Act violated his fundamental rights under:
Article 14 (Right to Equality),
Article 19(1)(f) (Right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property),
Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business).
⚖️ Issues Before the Court:
Whether the Bombay Prohibition Act infringed on the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)?
Whether the law was arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14?
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Bombay Prohibition Act with certain reservations.
Key Observations:
Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(6)):
The Court held that the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health and morality, including prohibiting intoxicating liquors.
Total prohibition of alcohol can be a valid public policy objective.
Article 19(1)(g):
The right to trade does not extend to trading in harmful substances like alcohol.
The Court said that the trade in intoxicating liquor is not a fundamental right, and the state can regulate or prohibit it.
Article 14:
The Court found that the Act was not discriminatory.
However, some specific provisions of the Act were struck down for being overly restrictive and not reasonably justified.
🧠 Significance of the Case:
First major test of the ‘reasonable restrictions’ clause under Article 19.
Established that the State can ban or restrict trade in certain items (like alcohol) for public welfare.
Reaffirmed the idea that fundamental rights are not absolute and can be curtailed for public interest.
Clarified that some rights (like trading in alcohol) are not protected under Article 19(1)(g) as they are considered harmful or immoral.
📌 Conclusion:
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara is a landmark case for understanding:
The balance between individual freedom and social control,
The scope of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights,
And the limits of economic freedoms under the Indian Constitution.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments