Mumbai:
Parents of youths have moved the Bombay High Court opposing a PIL filed by actor Imran Khan which challenges the Maharashtra government's decision raising the age limit for consuming alcohol from 21 to 25 years.
The intervening application, filed by lawyer Chitranjan Kumar on behalf of parents, contended that prohibition was extremely desirable and hence ban on liquor till 25 years was in no way unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
Justifying restrictions on drinking till 25 years age, the intervenors argued that consumption of alcohol would pollute the minds of youths and change their life style resulting in behavioural patterns and attitudinal problems.
The parents have argued that lowering the age limit for drinking will increase the number of offenders between the age of 18-25 years related to 'drinking and driving' cases as achunk of population falls under this age group.
Today, drinking is a separate offence in addition to the 'drinking & driving' for this age group. These two separate offences will become one which will promote youth to 'drink and drive' leading to fatal results, they argued.
Besides, the numbers of wine shops, beer-bars and rave parties will increase multi-fold to cater to legal demands of youth. This will trigger illegal means to procure liquor and put unnecessary financial burden on public exchequer.
The actor has argued in the PIL that the government's action in increasing the age limit for drinking liquor till 25 years infringed on fundamental rights of a citizen living in a democratic country.
"If the government has not banned sale of liquor then anyone above the age of 21 should have the choice of consuming it. A major can decide for himself what is right and wrong," the actor argued.
The PIL as well as the intervening application by parents would come up for hearing in due course.
The intervening application, filed by lawyer Chitranjan Kumar on behalf of parents, contended that prohibition was extremely desirable and hence ban on liquor till 25 years was in no way unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unjust.
Justifying restrictions on drinking till 25 years age, the intervenors argued that consumption of alcohol would pollute the minds of youths and change their life style resulting in behavioural patterns and attitudinal problems.
The parents have argued that lowering the age limit for drinking will increase the number of offenders between the age of 18-25 years related to 'drinking and driving' cases as achunk of population falls under this age group.
Today, drinking is a separate offence in addition to the 'drinking & driving' for this age group. These two separate offences will become one which will promote youth to 'drink and drive' leading to fatal results, they argued.
Besides, the numbers of wine shops, beer-bars and rave parties will increase multi-fold to cater to legal demands of youth. This will trigger illegal means to procure liquor and put unnecessary financial burden on public exchequer.
The actor has argued in the PIL that the government's action in increasing the age limit for drinking liquor till 25 years infringed on fundamental rights of a citizen living in a democratic country.
"If the government has not banned sale of liquor then anyone above the age of 21 should have the choice of consuming it. A major can decide for himself what is right and wrong," the actor argued.
The PIL as well as the intervening application by parents would come up for hearing in due course.
