What’s to stop the State from coming into our homes and saying, "no non-veg from tomorrow?” Sr Adv Mihir Joshi in Gujarat liquor prohibition case

In the challenge to the prohibition on liquor before the Gujarat High Court, Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi on Tuesday raised questions surrounding the right to privacy of citizens vis-a-vis the right of the State to interfere with the same (Peter Jagdish Nazareth v. State of Gujarat)..Linking the right to privacy with the citizens' right to eat and drink as per their choice, Joshi asked the Court,“What’s to stop the State from coming into our homes and saying, 'no non-veg from tomorrow'?”.The submission was made during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the prohibition on manufacture, sale, and consumption of liquor in the State under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949..Counsel for various petitioners today argued against the preliminary objections put forth by the State regarding maintainability of the petitions..Advocate General Kamal Trivedi raised a preliminary objection during yesterday's hearing, arguing that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bombay & Anr v. FN Balsara, in which it upheld the vires of the 1949 Act..Appearing for one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Mihir Thakore extended the argument that the provisions under challenge in the current pleas have been amended over the years and are materially different from what they were in 1951..Further, he submitted that the ground for challenge at the time was legislative incompetence, whereas the grounds taken by the current petitioners vary greatly and relate to manifest arbitrariness and the right to privacy.“Preliminary arguments made by the AG regarding bar on the High Court revisiting a Supreme Court judgment do not apply if there are material changes in the provisions being challenged," Thakore argued..Advocate Devan Parikh added that a judgment of the Supreme Court that decides on the competence of the legislature can still be challenged on any other grounds..Thakore also argued that the State cannot intervene in activities being carried on in the privacy of citizens' homes.“My primary submission is that if I want to consume liquor in my home, the State does not have a right to curb my actions. The State can only curb if I am causing public nuisance such as drinking & driving,” he said..Joshi, appearing for another petitioner stated that the Supreme Court had recognised an individual’s right to be left alone by way of its judgment in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India.“Many new rights have been developed and recognised by the Supreme Court that did not exist at the time of the original challenge. The Constitution and tights are constantly evolving, and the apex court has recognised that a law that was once held valid can be revisited based on change in social context,” he said..The Bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav will continue hearing the matters tomorrow, for the third day in a row.