Spotlight
New Delhi, 23 December 2016
Liquor Policy &
Trade
WANTED NATIONAL
ACTION PLAN
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi
The Supreme Court ordered a ban on all liquor shops on
national as well as State highways across the country. The licences of existing
shops will not be renewed after 31st March 2017. In effect, the apex
court practically accused the Union Government for “not doing anything
concrete”, and over that “speaking the language of vendors” which is the reason
for it to step in.
The order issued on a batch of petitions was aimed at
reducing road accidents. The court expressed deep concern over fatal road
accidents exceeding 1.5 lakh in a year caused by drunken driving. This is
reversal of its earlier verdict given in September on a plea seeking complete
ban on alcohol in the country that courts could not venture into the policy
domain of States.
The recent case was heard by a three-judge bench headed by
the Chief Justice of India. It also ordered removal of all advertisements and
sign boards on the highways indicating the route for nearby liquor shops.
Recall that the Union government had on 1st December 2011 issued a
circular to States and Union
Territories to shift all
liquor shops from highways. Needless to mention this has not been taken
seriously for implementation by the Centre.
At the same time, the apex court has also reminded State
governments to do their duty “to bring about prohibition of consumption except
for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious
to health” as prescribed under the Directive Principles of the Constitution. It
mentioned Punjab State which sought exemption for liquor
shops situated on highways in elevated space and came down heavily on the
liquor lobby in the State and asked the Government “to do something for the
general public”.
The verdict exposes conflicting interests involved in the
consumption of liquor – the industry, business, revenue, public good and
private pleasure. Any anti-liquor policy and legislation must be national to be
effective. But, distribution of powers under the Constitution has placed
“intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession,
transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors” in the State List.
State policies and laws are required, but not enough to
produce results. In olden days, when the old Madras Presidency followed
prohibition, weekly journey of drink addicts to neighbouring Puducherry was
known to be common. The model is revived today. The Supreme Court now is
shocked to learn that there are 62 liquor shops along one km. stretch on the
national highway in Mahe district in this UT for the “benefit” of Kerala
addicts deprived of drink following imposition of prohibition of liquor in
their State.
In recent months, there has grown a populist competition
among various States to introduce ban on liquor. In Tamil Nadu, for instance,
political parties – the DMK (which lifted prohibition in 1971), MDMK, VCK, PMK,
and other local parties – promise to bring about prohibition of liquor as a
priority. NGOs are also extra eager to support prohibition in various ways
including organisation of protest marches.
Ideas are invited and action plans are promoted in a competitive spirit.
Essay competitions are organised to gather ideas. Organised and unorganised
women’s groups take to picketing liquor shops located near schools and temples
and have succeeded in many places in closing them.
In Kerala, a phased programme of wiping out liquor
consumption was unleashed starting with restriction of bar licences to 5-star
hotels. The Supreme Court also upheld the policy of Kerala Government, but was
unhappy over allowing beer and wine. The UDF leadership chose the issue of
“prohibition by stages” as its chief election plank in May 2016 while LDF
canvassed for promoting “abstinence”.
Bihar launched its dry law in April this
year banning both country-made and Indian-made Foreign Liquor with immediate
effect. A noteworthy feature of its tough prohibition law is the provision for
collective penalty for a whole village or town up to Rs. one lakh for violation
of the law by a group. Leaving aside the politics behind prohibition, JD (U)’s
rather firm stand and the Chief Minister’s staunch commitment to the policy is
a rare instance of fulfilling a promise made in the election manifesto to bring
about total ban on consumption and sale of liquor in the State. The law applies to liquor and not to toddy.
However, the Patna High Court, in September 2016 quashed the
order on liquor ban on the basis that it created unreasonable restrictions on
the choice of livelihood of a person protected under Article 21 under the
Fundamental Rights. Still, the Chief Minister, relying on people’s support,
came out with a new and more stringent law providing for more harsh punishment
to keep Bihar dry. The law, termed “draconian”
by Opposition parties, provides for capital punishment for those trading in
illicit liquor and punishment for family members above 18 years in case of
consumption of alcohol at home and of top management for consumption within the
company premises. The Government is seeking public views on the issue, and is
ready to address the objections and not to reverse the decision.
Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar describes liquor trade as
immoral and refuted the claim of loss of revenue due to prohibition. As regards
the problem of loss of livelihood for those engaged in liquor manufacture and
trade, his advice is to shift to alternative service – a suggestion not
marketable among people satisfied with practising traditional occupations and
following conventional pattern of life.
The Government of Maharashtra has also decided to shut down
toddy shops. The Chief Minister of Delhi
has declared that no new liquor shop would be sanctioned in the capital this
year. On the other hand, Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh held that liquor is
“linked with various traditions, customs” and could not be banned altogether
though he agreed to ban opening of new shops.
Thus, there has been a sudden surge in the demand for liquor
ban among political parties all over the country. It cannot certainly be
attributed to the sudden dawn of enlightenment or moral resurgence. Whatever be
the motive, the wave must be utilised.
History has shown that it is difficult to enforce
prohibition. Any law will leave scope for differential treatment of offenders
due to spot decisions by law enforcers. The common argument of governments that prohibition will
encourage production of spurious liquor shops amounts to open admission of
inefficiency and/or reluctance of law enforcing authorities to catch the
culprits.
The moral side of the problem, dear to non-drinking public,
is something to be felt and realised and cannot be taught. Curious arguments of
individual freedom and rights, right to pursue livelihood of one’s choice
cannot go on forever as restrictions themselves are necessary to uphold any
rights and freedom in real life.
The social cost of chronic abuse of alcohol is calculated to
be much bigger than the revenue raised. Diseases and infirmities, losses due to
road accidents, decline in work output, neglect of families leading to serious
problems of domestic violence, child labour, and school drop-out are the
glaring social cost involved in alcoholism. The nation needs a wise National
Liquor Policy to be followed by effective and uniform State laws. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|