STATE OF BOMBAY V. F.N. BALSARA AIR 1951 SC 318

STATE OF BOMBAY V. F.N. BALSARA AIR 1951 SC 318

 

ISSUE-

The issue pertaining to the current case was whether entry 8 of list II includes within its scope medicinal preparations having alcohol content beyond the prescribed limit.

 

DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY

This Hon'ble court explained the doctrine in RMDC vs Union of India as follows "When a legislature whose authority is subject to limitations aforesaid enacts a law which is wholly in excess of its powers, it is entirely void and must be completely ignored. But when the legislation falls in part within the area allotted to it and in part outside it, it is undoubtedly void as to the latter; but does it on that become necessarily void in its entirety? The answer to this question must depend on whether what is valid could be separated from what is invalid, and that is a question which has to be decided by the Court on a consideration of the provisions of the act.”

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. The court observed that a conflict was sought to be made out between entry 41 of list I and entry 8 of list II. Arguing for a better view, it was suggested that import of intoxicating liquor wouldn't end with mere landing of the goods on the shore and would also imply that the imported goods reach the hands of the importer who should be able to possess them. Therefore, it was said that the state could not prohibit the possession and sale of intoxicating liquors so that would amount to a power to prohibit their import into the country, as one is a necessary consequence of the other. It was also observed by this Hon'ble court that the word “import” doesn’t include either sale or possession of the Article imported into the country by a person residing into the territory in which it is imported.
2. To reconcile the two entries, this Hon'ble court gave a limited meaning to the word "import' in the Central entry in order to give effect to the State entry. The Court held that 'import' standing by itself, could not include sale or possession of the Article imported into the country by a person residing in the territory in which it was imported. The State entry has no reference to import and export but merely deals with production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. The State Legislature could, therefore, prohibit the possession, use and sale of intoxicating liquors. Thus, entry 8 to the list II has been given effect by narrowing down the scope of the Central entry which could otherwise nullify the State power if it were to be broadly interpreted. Hence, it was held by this Hon'ble court that the entry 8 of list II included medicinal preparations having alcohol content beyond the prescribed limit.
3. The court therefore declared Section 13(b) of the Bombay Protection Act as void because it violated Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.