“Even on the basis of approach made in later decisions of the Supreme Court, a new ground of challenge is not available,” he argued.
Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi on Wednesday argued that the apex court had itself noted in its judgment that the restrictions imposed by the legislation on the right of a citizen to possess, sell or consume alcohol, was not been disputed before it in view of the directive principles of state policy.
The Contemporary Argument of ‘Right to Privacy’
“Constitutional rights are not issues which the State should insist to be thrown out at the threshold. In this case, the court will be examining whether the right to privacy recognized in 2017 includes a choice of intoxicating drinks. This cannot be held to have been answered in negative in a Judgment of 1951,” Joshi submitted.
Joshi, during the hearing on Tuesday, had linked the right to privacy with the citizens’ right to eat and drink as per their choice and had remarked, “What’s to stop the State from coming into our homes and saying ‘no non-veg from tomorrow’?” he had asked.
Trivedi, objecting to this argument, submitted on Wednesday, June 23, said, “The right to eat non-veg cannot be compared with consuming intoxicating drinks. Tomorrow, someone may say you cannot object if I’m taking drugs within my four walls.”
Crime Today News | INDIA