auto industry
Traffic moves along a highway during evening rush hour in Delhi. | Photo: Prashanth Vishwanathan | Bloomberg
Text Size:

New Delhi: In a judgment that could have far-reaching consequences, the Supreme Court Monday clarified that a private car travelling on a public road can be deemed as a ‘public place’.

The court has essentially overruled a 1999 Kerala High Court judgment which had said that a private car on a public road would still constitute a private space. The verdict can be interpreted to mean that any activity that is not allowed in a public space, such as smoking, will now not be allowed in a private car on a public road either.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph said that while the public may not have access to a private vehicle as a matter of right, but it would definitely have the opportunity to approach the vehicle on a public road.

The court further noted that ‘public conveyance’, which was omitted from the 1978 notification that defined public space, was introduced in the 2016 Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act. “The statutory amendment also did away with the difference between public and private conveyance,” the court noted.


Also readTwo Supreme Court benches, two different takes on freedom of speech and expression


The case

The top court’s clarification came on a plea filed by Satvinder Singh, through his lawyer, Rahul Bhandari. Singh challenged a Patna High Court order that dismissed his plea to set aside a trial court order which took cognisance of offences under Bihar’s 2016 prohibition law.

In 2016, Singh was travelling along with others in their private vehicle from Giridih, Jharkhand to Patna, Bihar, which is almost 236 kilometres away. At Rajauli, which is on the Jharkhand-Bihar border, their car was stopped, searched, and the occupants were subjected to a breath-analyser test.

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

The state officials did not find alcohol in the car, though Satvinder, who was a passenger, tested positive on the breath-analyser. Singh was then charged and booked under the relevant provisions of the law.

Even if a person consumes liquor outside the state borders but enters the territory of Bihar and is found in a state of drunkenness, he is liable to be penalised under Section 37(b) of the 2016 Prohibition Act.

However, Singh argued that at the time of his arrest, Section 37(b) had not yet been introduced, and hence, he was not liable for being found drunk in Bihar.

Partial victory

The court agreed with Singh partially. “A person who consumes liquor in a different state cannot be fastened with a penalty under Section 53(a) unless there is some evidence to prove that consumption of liquor by the accused has taken place in the state of Bihar,” the verdict read.

“We have to further take into notice that private vehicle of the appellants was intercepted when it was on the public road. When private vehicle is passing through a public road it cannot be accepted that public have no access,” the verdict read.

“It is true that public may not have access to private vehicle as matter of right but definitely public have opportunity to approach the private vehicle while it is on the public road. Hence, we are not able to accept the submission that vehicle in which appellants are travelling is not covered by definition of ‘public place’ as defined in Section 2(17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.”

Bihar had imposed total prohibition on all forms of liquor in April 2016. The state legislature had enacted Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, to enforce, implement and promote complete prohibition of liquor and intoxicants in the state.


Also read:  SC to hear plea seeking probe into ‘brutal’ torture of 2 Muslim men in Bihar police custody


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

8 Comments Share Your Views

8 COMMENTS

  1. Good one.. Would like to find some judgement or solution for private cars and private vans parked permanently on the either side of the road(residential areas) thus reducing the road space for pedestrians as well as for other running vehicles.. Intervention of laws essential and things becoming worst day by day..

  2. Do anything standing , sitting or even lying on your fence/compound wall of your private property (aline or in numbers)…. no law cannot interfere… coz it’s not public space… If anyone stares at your private space sue them rightaway.

  3. If someone had taken some drinks at party, then what will he do. One thing is for sure for safety reasons for self and other he/she shouldn’t be driving, but according to verdict they can’t be travelled through there car at there back ceat as now it become public place. Government had to ban all the bars and pubs where liquor are searving, as after having drink one has to use roads to reach there houses.

  4. In simple words; Entertainment is a crime nomatter where and how u do it, unless u pay a hefty amount including taxes .

  5. Be careful, if you kiss your Girlfriend in the privacy of your car, you may be charged for public nuisance and indecency. BIG DADDY IS WATCHING YOU

  6. This is an excellent judgment. Buses and trains were already treated as public places. Now the private vehicles would also follow the laws meant for public places. Does it mean that now government has more power to enforce laws related to safety and security inside the vehicle? However, It will a nightmare for activists who are over jealous of protecting individual choices and privacy.

  7. This is a far reaching judgement. If you can be searched on a public road in your car, then you can be searched on any other conveyance as well. So, if you are out for a walk, nothing prevents you from being searched. This incidentally is opposite, at least in spirit, of the privacy ruling. Over time, court overreach and immaturity have destroyed the constitution.

    • First of all IndiaS judicial system needs to be faster, efficient and delivering justice beyond doubt or interference of politics, nepotism and briberies.
      People are searched only when they violate laws of land or don’t follow rules of traffic and other civilian rules. No one should be searched without suspected of breaking or intention of breaking laws with incriminating evidence.
      This is there in any democratic civilized society. As criminals have rights so the common citizens and victims should have same or better rights. People will obey laws only if there is proper enforcement and justice system, that doesn’t mean police raj.
      India has developed notorious habit under independence rule that everyone wants rights without responsibility towards state or other civilians. All western democracies do punish law breakers after due judicial process.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here