[Liquor ban during elections] Ban for long periods on shop establishments violates Article 21: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently said that imposing long prohibitory bans on shop establishments would affect livelihood of persons and violate Article 21 of the Constitution [All India Wine Producers Association v. Deputy Secretary and Assistant Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra & Ors.]..The Court was hearing a plea against liquor ban proposed in certain districts on account of upcoming local electionsBy an order passed earlier this week, the Court cut short the period of ban from four days to only one day - the day on which the voting is scheduled to take place, i.e. January 30, 2023. .Justice Milind Jadhav observed:“Imposing a prohibitory ban for long period on merchant establishments and establishments which provide livelihood is contrary to the enshrined principles under Article 221 of the Constitution of India and whenever such thing happens, the Authorities need to be thoughtful.".The petition filed by the All India Wine Producers Association and the Association of Progressive Retail Liquor Vendors challenged the ban on the sale of liquor in four districts i.e., Nashik, Thane, Palghar, and Raigad for four days, including the date of voting (January 30). The petitioners contended that the ban would adversely affect their livelihood and business. Acknowledging this concern, the Court held that the principles of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution would be affected. .The Court also opined that since the present elections are not parliamentary elections, the yardsticks applicable to those elections could not be applied to present graduate constituencies. .“I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the prohibition imposed by the Respondents is restricted to only the date of voting ... it is directed that the prohibitory ban imposed by the impugned order in both the Writ Petitions shall only be restricted to 30.01.2023 and all other days stand exempted,” the Court proceeded to order..Senior Advocate Atul Damle along with Advocates Vivek Salunke, Suresh Sabrad, Amey Sawant and Roshan Hule appeared for petitioners. Additional government pleaders PG Sawant appeared for State of Maharashtra. .[Read order]