The fundamental rights as stated in Part III of Indian Constitution gives a point by point portrayal of all the rights which every citizen of India is entitled to have it sans discrimination except in some special cases where it demanded to be abrogated by states.
These rights ensure common opportunity to every one of the natives of India to permit them to live in peace and harmony. These are the essential rights that each Indian resident has the privilege to appreciate, independent of their standing, statement of faith and religion, birth place, race, shading or sexual orientation. These rights, which are called Fundamental Rights, incorporate Right to Equality, Right to Freedom, Right to Freedom of Religion, Right against Exploitation, and so forth.
Anybody who snatches these Fundamental rights from its citizen is liable to be rebuffed as specified in the Indian Penal Code. And hence the founding father dreamed of an Ideal India where all are treated equally, all have equal accessibility and above all, everyone can have equal opportunity.
Lately in India, this synthesized philosophy seems to be violated time and again by political parties and leaders for their petty political gains. Politics of dividing the society over drink and meat only tell us how bankrupt Indian polity is becoming. The loud mouth of these representatives only makes us think about our choices and errors we committed in past. The controversy of banning the alcohol consumption and beef is giving India bad name internationally. In this environment, people look up to judiciary, ask their intervention in usual routine, and dare to ask ‘where are my fundamental rights, My Lord’?
Thomas Jefferson, the founding father and principal author of Declaration of Independence once famously said “when the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty”. The judiciary did intervene when the Bombay high court challenged the constitutionality of amendment in Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act-1978 in 2015. This amendment deals with the legislation regulating the slaughter of animal and consumption of beef.
Another recent judgment of Patna high court on prohibition of Alcohol consumption set aside the order of Bihar government to have a complete ban across state. This judgment when read together with Bombay high court order, significantly balance the system and put the fundamental right above all. These orders also reaffirm our beliefs on justice system and guide us how the relation should be between state and its citizen within the constitutional framework. It firmly states the Indian citizen have the right eat and drink whatever they want.
In the Bombay high court judgment, the court dismisses the contentions on the privilege to equity (on the premise that the classiﬁcation between the butchers who butcher goats and sheep and those that butcher ox-like dairy cattle was a substantial one due to the convenience of bovines and female wild oxen). The court additionally dismisses the contention that the denounced Acts damaged the privilege of Muslims to proclaim their religion since it found that of the religious obligation to yield cows was not compulsory. The main conflict of the solicitors that was considered decidedly by the court was the privilege to rehearse any calling or carry on any occupation.
Here once more, the court depended on contentions identifying with the value of ox-like steers in a to a great extent agrarian economy in the creation of milk, the utilization of bulls for draft power and compost for agribusiness. In view of this, it achieved the conclusion that the aggregate prohibition on the butcher of dairy animals of any age, and the butcher of calves of buffaloes and cows was to be maintained, while the restriction on wild oxen and bulls, bullocks was substantial insofar as they were fit for being utilized as a part of milch and draft steers.
When wild oxen and bulls stopped to be fit for yielding milk or of reproducing or filling in as draft creatures, disallowances on their butcher were no more in light of a legitimate concern for the overall population and were in certainty a weight on assets.
Similarly in the Patna high court decision over alcohol consumption, despite the fact that the two-judge seat concurred that the liquor boycott did not face legitimate investigation on different grounds; there was difference on this particular issue of fundamental rights versus DPSP. The court contended that the founding father of our Constitution did not see liquor consumption as a fundamental right since then they wouldn't have recorded forbiddance as a DPSP. This is a convoluted line of thinking which, as Justice Singh, the chief justice of Patna high court appropriately calls attention to, disintegrates fundamental rights to secure a DPSP consequently militating against the standards set out broadly in the Minerva Mills case.
Both this judgment considered landmark in its own terms, since at no other time have the courts saw prohibition through the perspective of individual freedom. Past judgements on the issue, quite often maintaining denial, have seen it through the privilege to employment focal point and found that the impediments on the production and sale of liquor were reasonable restriction forced by the state. This time, in any case, the individual freedom perspective was particularly raised by the applicant, which included liquor dealers as well as people attesting their entitlement to drink sensible amounts of liquor in the bounds of their home.
However the experts of law and constitution may contest the idea formulated by Bombay and Patna high court, where these decisions may have detrimental effect on individual health, beliefs and profession. The beef remark of Bombay high court may change the India as an industrialized country, the remark on liquor consumption prohibition may change the social order and norms. But as the Justice Singh of Patna high Court remarked that the “Concept of personal liberty worldwide are changing and breaking the barriers internationally” and hence we as a state can’t put any restriction on our citizen to do something or not to do something.
This might push the argument little further where barriers seems to breaking, but it does give a positive shape to society, individual and law.