Times View

CHENNAI: Blaming alcoholism for road deaths and many social evils, the Madras high court on Wednesday said if governments 't bring about total prohibition, they should at least restrict sale of liquor. It wanted to know how a government could run the liquor business when the Constitution advocated total prohibition, and asked whether money from liquor outweighed the duty to ensure public safety and health.Passing interim orders in an accident compensation case, Justice N Kirubakaran raised 16 queries and asked the central and the state governments to furnish replies by December 11. How is it that drinking water is scarce in several villages whereas liquor flows like water in every nook and corner of the country, he asked.Justice Kirubakaran said one should go to the root of the menace of drunk driving and analyse how much did governments contribute to it.The judge said since there is a direct connection between liquor and deaths in road accidents, matrimonial disharmony and personal relationships, governments should come forward at least to cap liquor vending hours to eight hours from 12 hours a day. While Article 47 of the Constitution says the government should endeavour to achieve total prohibition in the country, Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits drunken driving.The judge was hearing an appeal from the families of two youths who were killed in a road accident involving an MTC bus on LB Road in Adyar in Chennai. A motor accidents claims tribunal awarded Rs 11 lakh to one victim, and reduced 20% for other victim due to 'contributory negligence', saying he was riding the bike and he was drunk."Even water (drinking water) is scarce in most parts of our country, but this 'water' (alcohol) flows aplenty in every nook and corner of the nation. Many families are drowned. Liquor is poison to society. Liquor is the basic reason for many social evils. In spite of that, governments are opening as many liquor shops/bars as possible with the sole aim of getting revenue," lamented Justice Kirubakaran.Pointing out that the Tamil Nadu government has been running 6,850 retail liquor shops, 'serving the needy people', with a total turnover of Rs 30,000 crore, Justice Kirubakaran said: "Many families are shattered because of drinking, and their health and peace of mind are lost due to alcohol."Noting that women and children were adversely affected by alcoholism, the judge said it hit them physically as well as economically. He said juveniles were also increasingly becoming addicts, and said the 'dangerous problem' should be fought jointly by policy makers, bureaucrats, NGOs, political parties and people. It is alleged that some government servants are coming to office after consuming liquor, he said.Justice Kirubakaran was also of the view that full details of road accidents, including those caused by drunk driving, are not available because such cases are either not correctly filed or under-reported or unreported. It is done for the purpose of getting compensation by victims or their kin, he added. "If actual details are available, it will be shocking," he said.Justice Kirubakaran then suo motu impleaded the Union cabinet secretary , besides Tamil Nadu's revenue secretary, managing director of Tasmac (the state-owned liquor retailer in TN) and director general of police, and asked them to file their replies by December 11. They shall answer a set of 16 queries, which included: Whether states could open liquor shops and bars encouraging drunken driving, and whether in the opinion of the government, the money derived from liquor shops outweighs the right to protection of life enshrined in the Constitution?He asked as to why the government could not find an alternative source of revenue and why the Centre not make drunken driving a non-bailable offence. As an interim measure, why not the government reduce business hours of liquor shops and bars from 12 hours a day (10am to 10pm) to eight hours, from noon to 8pm, he asked.As long as one of the directive principles in the Constitution indicates that the state should strive towards prohibition, the question asked by the court in this case – what is the government doing making money from liquor sales? – will remain valid even if it seems out of synch with our common sense. The real question to be asked, therefore, is whether it is time to take a relook at some of the directive principles themselves. They may have made sense in the political, social and cultural context of the late 1940s and early 1950s, but do all of them remain as valid over six decades later?