What was the main question in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara?

Whether the Bombay Prohibition Act could be struck down in full, or only the offending parts should be removed while the rest survives.

What did the Supreme Court finally decide?

The Court invalidated only some sections dealing with alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet preparations, but kept the rest of the Act valid.

Which doctrines are important in this case?

Pith and substance (to find the law’s true nature) and severability (strike the bad parts, keep the good parts).

How does it relate to Article 19(1)(g)?

Trade or profession rights can face reasonable limits. Alcohol trade is highly regulable; complete invalidation was not warranted.

Why do students still read this case?

It shows how courts save a statute by cutting only the unconstitutional bits, a key skill in constitutional adjudication.

State of Bombay and Ors. v. F.N. Balsara

AIR 1951 SC 318 • Constitutional Law • Prohibition • Article 19 • Pith & Substance • Severability

Supreme Court of India 1951 Citation: AIR 1951 SC 318 ~6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 24 Oct 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara; prohibition; Article 19; pith and substance SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: severability; Bombay Prohibition Act 1949; trade freedom; constitutional challenge

Quick Summary

The Bombay Prohibition Act restricted possession, sale, and use of alcohol. Mr. F. N. Balsara challenged several parts as violating the right to trade and personal use. The Supreme Court used the pith and substance test to see the law’s true nature and applied severability to save the valid core. It struck down only those parts that unreasonably hit alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods, but upheld the rest.

Whole Act not void; only specific provisions fell.
State power to regulate/prohibit liquor sustained.
Good example of how courts trim laws instead of scrapping them.

Issues

Should the entire Prohibition Act be declared invalid?
Should the High Court’s decision striking only certain sections be affirmed?

Rules

Pith & Substance: Look at the law’s true character. If it mainly covers liquor control (a State subject), incidental effects do not spoil it.
Article 19(1)(g) & Reasonable Limits: Freedom to trade can be restricted by law, especially in the liquor sector.
Severability: If bad parts can be cleanly cut off, the rest of the statute survives.

Facts (Timeline)

View Timeline

Balsara sought to keep and use whisky, brandy, wine, beer, and medicinal items; also sought liberty to import/export within customs limits.

He moved the Bombay High Court seeking orders to restrain authorities from enforcing the Prohibition Act against him.

High Court: some provisions valid, some invalid. Both the State and Balsara appealed.

Supreme Court examined the law’s substance and the specific contested provisions.

Timeline visual for the Balsara case — Visual timeline (optional learning aid).

Arguments

Appellant: State

Liquor control is a State subject; prohibition is within competence.
Trade rights in liquor are limited and subject to strict regulation.
High Court went too far in invalidating parts that support the policy.

Respondent: Balsara

Parts of the Act unreasonably hit personal use and lawful trade (Art. 19(1)(g)).
Ban on alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods is overbroad.
If large parts are unconstitutional, the entire statute should fall.

Judgment

View Visual

State can regulate or prohibit liquor. The core prohibition scheme stands.
Provisions affecting alcohol-mixed medicines/toilet goods were invalidated.
Severability applied: only the offending parts were struck; the rest survived.
Net result: State’s appeal largely allowed; Balsara’s appeal dismissed.

Judgment overview graphic for Balsara case

Ratio (Core Principle)

When a law in substance targets liquor control (a State domain), incidental effects on trade do not defeat it. If some clauses are unconstitutional, they can be cut away so the valid scheme remains.

Why It Matters

Shows courts prefer saving statutes over striking them fully.
Clarifies how far governments can go in liquor policy.
Teaches careful use of pith & substance and severability.

Key Takeaways

State Competence: Liquor control is primarily a State matter.
Reasonable Limits: Article 19 rights can face strong limits in liquor trade.
Targeted Relief: Medicines/toilet goods cannot be hit without good reason.

Severability: Cut the bad; keep the good.
Method: Always test the law’s true nature first.
Exam Tip: Apply Pith→Impact→Sever steps.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: BALSARA = Bottles Allowed for Lotions, Soaps, And Restricted Alcohol

Bottles: Law mainly controls alcohol bottles (state power).
Lotions/Soaps: Don’t hit medicines/toilet goods—strike those parts.
Restricted Alcohol: Rest of the prohibition scheme stays.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the Prohibition Act is wholly invalid or only partly unconstitutional.

Rule

Pith & substance; Article 19(1)(g) with reasonable limits; severability of bad clauses.

Application

Core aim is liquor control (valid). But covering medicinal/toilet preparations went too far; those parts fail.

Conclusion

Only invalid sections were cut. The main prohibition scheme stands.

Glossary

Pith & Substance: Test to find the law’s real subject; ignores side effects.
Severability: Cut the unconstitutional parts; save the rest.
Article 19(1)(g): Right to trade/profession, subject to reasonable limits.
Mandamus: Court order directing an authority to perform a legal duty.

FAQs

Only the parts burdening alcohol-mixed medicines and toilet goods were struck. The broad prohibition framework stayed.

No. Liquor trade can be restricted heavily; public interest justifies strong control or even prohibition.

Start with issue → cite pith & substance + severability → explain partial invalidation → conclude: prohibition law stands minus the overbroad bits.

The challenge included movement and possession issues. The Court focused on legislative power and trimmed only the excessive reaches.

Quick Nav

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related