Advocate lists out flaws in the ban; says dinking wine is no safer than whiskey

Kerala’s bar owners on Wednesday attempted to expose the “hypocrisy” of the government’s liquor ban in Supreme Court by asking why prohibition is restricted to hard liquor and not extended to “equally potent” wine and beer.

“So why are you challenging the ban then... You should be happy that wine and beer can do the job for you,” retorted senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the State government.

Mr. Sibal, in an intervention during the bar owners' submission, told a Bench led by Justice Vikramjit Sen that Kerala accounts for 14 per cent of the total alcohol consumed in India.

“In some States, rice left over from the afternoon is soaked in water and taken the next day. It produces a nice stupor. So what purpose do you serve with this ban... Where are we going with this ban,” Justice Sen asked Mr. Sibal.

“Our concern is for school children, they go to these shops in the afternoon,” Mr. Sibal replied.

Earlier in the hearing. Justice Sen taunted the bar owners by asking their lawyer, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, why they have not attacked the FL-11 licence for sale of wine and beer. “I was just about to go into that when Your Lordship asked me,” Mr. Singh said.

Mr. Singh explained to the court that drinking wine is no safer than drinking whiskey.

“Exactly the same amount of alcohol goes into the bloodstream. A large glass of extra strong beer is as good as double shot of whiskey,” Mr. Singh argued against the government's stand that prohibition is meant to draw Kerala away from the drinking habit.

“You are saying there is no real intention on government's part... but the government need not prove its intention by bringing a policy. They can do so even without going to that trouble. Public hue and cry has attracted the call for prohibition. State says it will reduce sales by 10 per cent every year,” Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, also on the Bench, observed.

Mr. Singh countered by asking why the State had then set up entities like the Beverages Corporation which has sales to the tune of Rs. 10,000 crore annually.

Senior advocate L. Nageshwar Rao said the government used the liquor policy as a sledgehammer against small fries.

“Seventy-five percent of the liquor sales continue unabated while those responsible for .04 per cent have been closed down,” Mr. Rao submitted.

In an illustration of the “flaw” in the liquor ban,

Mr. Rao said: “Consider this. The roads in Delhi are clogged with traffic. Government decides to reduce traffic. It bans cyclists from plying the roads while giving cars a free run. Will it solve the crisis?”