State should have consistent policy on prohibition

Article 47 of the Constitution of India states that, “The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” This Article falls within Part IV of the Constitution that gives the Directive Principles of State Policy. As per Article 37, “The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.” 

A plain reading of the provisions shows that it is the duty of the government to promulgate and enforce prohibition. But, as we in Tamil Nadu are well aware, it is the State government that is vending liquor. Liquor is a revenue spinning industry / trade. Therefore, multicore business houses join hands to ensure that the State policies towards prohibition is to promote and not restrain or stop liquor trade. Hence it has been left to the Courts to ensure that it steps in where the State has failed despite the constitutional mandate of separation of powers. 

The Supreme Court had on 15.12.2016 ordered that, “No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or state highway; (ii) directly accessible  from a national or state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the highway.” “The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority.” 

Even as curtains came down to close all the liquor shops on the highways, many State governments started de-notifying the State Highways. The impact of de-notifying the roads will only worsen the maintenance of these roads, with poor budget allocations for them, etc. Some shops / bars on the highways changed their entry points or laid out mazes as entries, to defy the 500 meters’ ban. The ban on vending liquor would definitely impact tourism industry, especially because a number of even star hotels with bars are on the highways. There are States which depend heavily on the tourism industry, such as Goa, Kerala and Rajasthan. Tamil Nadu may have removed its Tasmac outlets from highways but the big restaurants and bars are on the highways. 

It is true that many accidents are due to drunken driving. Loss of life or limbs are not to be taken lightly. Consumption of alcohol is injurious to health, despite the perception of an Andhra minister that “beer is a health drink”. There is a large- scale movement, supported especially by women, for prohibition, as it is the women who are largely affected due to prevalent alcoholism. All political parties, including the ruling AIADMK in Tamil Nadu speak of bringing in prohibition in their manifesto. But the reality is far from it. Constant struggle for closure of liquor shops by local residents is the breaking news on many days. There are conflicting judgments pronounced by different judges at different times about how to handle these protestors who face the wrath of the police and suffer and whether to arrest and release them, imprison them, use an iron hand to quell their revolt or otherwise. It is a sad state of affairs when the State is unable to abide by its policy and the court steps in to do the States’ work. 

The need of the hour is a consistent policy and the determination to work towards making the directive principles of the state policy as enunciated in our Constitution a reality, by both the Central and the State governments.