Skip to main content

No fundamental right to consume intoxicant drugs

The Gujarat High Court, observing that there is no fundamental right to consume intoxicants, has upheld the Resolution by Home Department of the state by which it had prohibited and discontinued the supply of Poppy Capsules by Government authorities. Justice N.V. Anjaria also observed that the ban amounts to redemption of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 47 of the Constitution. Six persons, claiming to be regular users of poppy capsules, had approached the High Court challenging the ban by the Government. According to them, it violated their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. BAN TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH Rejecting their contention, the court observed: “Article 47 which is Directive Principle of State Policy, enjoins a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. It is a constitutional mandate that all policy decisions and actions by the State has to be guided and beckoned by the statutory principles contained in these Directives. Therefore the banning of use of poppy capsules is informed by and amounts to redemption of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 47 of the Constitution.” NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTOXICANT DRUGS Dismissing the petitions preferred, the court observed that there is no fundamental right to use intoxicants and said: “Addiction to a drug or a narcotic substance can never be claimed as right. Such proposition never hold good and is incongruous to the concept of right in the society governed by rule of law. A right to be so-called for an individual living in the society has the necessary constituent of the rule of law and the collective interest. There cannot be a right to consume a particular substance which is like poppy straw, much less the same can by any stretched be viewed or claimed as fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of ‘life’ encapsulated under Article 21 signifies healthy, reach and contentful orderly life. Right to health is recognized as part of Article 21. A consumption of intoxicant or narcotic or psychotropic substance is antithetic to the concept of health and therefore stands divorced from the right to life and from any other concomitant rights which may be claimed under the canopy of rights under Article 21. Right of such nature cannot be claimed as fundamental. Claiming that right to consume poppy capsule is one emanating from right to life, is to seek expansion of interpretation of Article 21, which is both in naïve and nasty. Right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 cannot have this much stress and width so as to allow a person to consume a intoxicating or psychotropic substance on the ground which are otherwise not supported by the expert studies.”

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/no-fundamental-right-consume-intoxicant-drugs-gujarat-hc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...