B. KRISHNA BHAT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B. KRISHNA BHAT 
v. 
A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
·' 
- + 
MARCH 19, 1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.J. AND M.M. PUNCHHI, J.] 
B 
Constitution of•lndia, 1950: Articles 32 & 37-,Writ Petition for 
direction to State of Karnataka to enforce total prohibition-Whether 
r 
maintainable. 
' 
•0 
Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 
c 
1968: Rule 3( 11) (b) as amended by Amendment Rules, 1989-Distri-
--
butor licence-Monopoly conferred on State-Whether constitutionally 
valid-Writ Petition under Art. 32 Df Constitution for enforcement of 
policy of prohibition. Whether maintainable. 
>·· 
Clause (b) of sub-rule ( 11) rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of 
D 
Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by the Amend-
ment Rules, 1989, requires the State Government lo issue distributor 
licence only lo such company owned or controlled by it as may be 
specified. 
The petitioner assailed the constitutional validity of clause (b) on 
E 
I 
the ground that the policy of-prohibition was not being implemented as 
~-
enjoined by Article 47 of the Constitution inasmuch as the State of 
. 
. 
Karnataka instead of bringing total prohibition in the)'tate, had 
evinced interest in laking up the responsibility of selling liquors to the 
--
general public, and sought a direction to the Union and other State 
~ 
·Governments to enforce the policy of total prohibition. 
F 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court, 
)--· 
HELD: I. There is no direct or casual violation of any funda-
mental right of which the petitioner can legi'timately daim enforce-
ment. 
G 
.Z. Article 47 is in Part IV of. the Constituliml which contains 
Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 37 enjoins that the provi-
)-
sions of this part shall not be enforceable by any court. Article 32 gives 
the Supreme Court the power to enforce rights which are fundamental 
rights. Fundamental rights-are justiciable, Directive Principles are not. 
H 
1 
A 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
Directive Principles are aillled at securing certain valnes or enforcing 
certain attitndes in the law making and in the administration of law. 
Directive Principles cannot in the very nature of things be enforced in a 
court of law. 
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, 
B 
(1981] 1 SCC 246, referred to. 
3. Whether a law should be made embodying the principles of 
Directive Principles depends on the legislative will of the legislature. In 
\ 
the instant case, what the petitioner sought ~o achieve by his application 
.,.
was to inject a sense of _priority_ and urgency in that legislative will. 
C 
Determining the choice of priorities and formulating perspective 
thereof, is a matter of policy. Article 32 is not the machinery through 
which policy preferences or priorities are determined. It is not the nest 
for all the bees in the bonnet of 'public spirited persons'. 
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970] 3 SCR 550, 
D referred to. 
E 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
42 of 1990. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
N .D .R: Ramachandra Rao and Vineet Kumar for the petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, C.[._ This is a petition under 
'-
F 
article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be ... a 
public spirited individual". He further claims to be a person aggrieved 
and seeks to assail the constitutional validity of the State of Kamataka 
----< 
and the Union of India not promoting, enforcing and carrying out the 
policy of prohibition i.e. manufacturing, sale and consumption of 
intoxicating drinks and drug~ throughout the country-India-Bharat, 
G 
and also assails the constitutional validity of clause (b) of sub-rule 
11 qf rule 3 of the Kamataka Excise (Sale of Indian- and Foreign 
Liquors) Rules, 1968 as amended by the Kamataka Excise (Sale of 
Indian and Foreign Liquors) (Amendment) Rules, 1989 which came 
--¥ 
into fore on 10th September, 1989. 
H 
The petitioner refers to the Preamble to the Constitution which, 
B.K. v. BHATrn.O.I. [MUKHARJI, CJ.] 
3 
according to him, explains the general purpose behind the general 
provisions of the Constitution. He refers to Mahatma Gandhi and his 
commitment to prohibition. According to the petitioner, manufacture, 
sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs have become a 
stumbling block and a dangerous dragon to the progress and stability 
of the nation as a whole. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.