Supreme Court Lists 5 Major Drawbacks Of Liquor Ban, Asks: What Has It Achieved?

New Delhi: During the hearing of a case related to prohibition, the Supreme Court has made several important comments on the practical effect of complete prohibition. The court said that the policy of completely banning the sale of liquor can sometimes drive the business underground and with it there is a danger of illegal liquor trade increasing. In this context, the bench mentioned possible aspects like reduction in revenue, expenditure on law enforcement, corruption, illegal liquor trade and move towards other drugs. This comment came in the case related to Maharashtra Poison Rules, in which the Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B.

What effect does liquor ban have on revenue?

The court also mentioned the revenue loss to the government as one of the most important aspects related to liquor prohibition. Excise duty on the sale of liquor is a source of revenue for states. In case of complete stoppage, this income ends. However, the court's comments were in the legal context of the case and cannot be seen as a general conclusion applicable to the financial situation of all states.

Why do law enforcement costs increase?

After the implementation of liquor prohibition, the government has to devote separate resources to monitor illegal sales and smuggling. Police and administration have to take action against such networks that continue to supply liquor despite the ban. The Supreme Court also considered such enforcement costs an important aspect when discussing the potential impact of prohibition.

Could the ban increase the risk of corruption?

The court raised the issue of corruption as another potential impact of prohibition. When there is a ban on the legal sale of a commodity, but its demand remains, the way for illegal supply may open. In such cases, the possibility of corruption related to the enforcement mechanism also increases. The Supreme Court included it among the problems related to prohibition, which should be taken into consideration while making policy.

Why does illicit liquor trade become a challenge?

The bench said that complete prohibition often drives the liquor business underground. In such a situation, illegal networks may become active instead of the legitimate market. In the same sequence, the court also mentioned the deaths due to poisonous and adulterated liquor. The court cited the incidents of poisonous liquor in Gujarat and other states as an example of this danger.

What was said about the use of drugs?

While discussing the possible impact of prohibition, the court also brought forward the aspect that if alcohol is not available, some people may turn to other intoxicants. However, this should not be construed as a conclusion by the Court that this would be the case in every prohibition state. This was one of the potential social impacts that the bench discussed.

Why did the Supreme Court cancel the rules of Maharashtra?

The case was related to Rules 18A and 18B of Maharashtra Poison Rules. Under these provisions, there was a provision to add prescribed color and bittering substance to the methanol before selling it to non-pharmaceutical manufacturers. The purpose of the rules was to prevent misuse of methanol and prevent incidents of alcohol poisoning. The Supreme Court, while hearing the petitions related to the chemical industry challenging these provisions, canceled them.

What rules were made after the 1991 incident?

In the background of these rules, there was also an incident of alcohol poisoning involving methanol in Mumbai in 1991. After that accident, rules were made to prevent misuse of methanol. In the present case, although the court held that the intention of the state behind making the rules is not in question, a measure cannot be justified on the legal basis merely on the basis of good intentions.

What did the court say on the argument of Maharashtra government?

The bench said that the state had not adequately explained how adding color and bitter substances to methanol would prevent its illegal use. The court also raised the question as to how these additives would definitely prevent deaths due to alcohol poisoning. On this basis, the court canceled the relevant rules considering them inconsistent.

Why were incidents of poisonous liquor mentioned?

During the hearing, the court mentioned the incidents of poisonous liquor in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. According to the report, the court saw the incidents of death of 13 people in Bhavnagar and 15 in Sagar as a serious signal. The bench said that such incidents are a warning to the administration and highlight the need for effective action against the illicit liquor network.