MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently quashed a criminal case registered against several residents of Alagankulam village in Ramanathapuram district for staging a protest, without obtaining permission, against a Tasmac outlet in their village.
Allowing a petition filed by some of the protesters seeking to quash the case, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that it is the right of the society, whose health and family is devastated by the ill effects of liquor, to demand the closure of liquor outlets.
When they express their demand and protest peacefully, it cannot be said that an offence is committed, the judge added. On February 6, the petitioners staged a protest, seeking a direction for the closure of the Tasmac outlet on the ground that it is situated in a residential area and is causing nuisance to the public, especially women and school students.
The judge pointed out that the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) was established on May 29, 1983, with an object to prevent deaths on account of illicit arrack.
“Though the Tasmac corporation has been established with a laudable object, it has become a revenue generating corporation for the government, and therefore, it has been patronised by the government, disregarding other consequences of alcohol on the health of human beings,” the judge criticised.
He further observed that a welfare state aims to guarantee the dignity, health, education, and economic security of its citizens. It does not limit itself to maintaining law and order like a police state, but goes further to ensure that every individual is able to lead a life of dignity and purpose. Hence, a duty is cast upon the state to ensure the good health of the citizens as per Article 47 of the Constitution, the judge added.
Though it was alleged that the petitioners had assembled despite a prohibition order, the Alagankulam village administrative order (VAO) did not refer to any such order while making the complaint, the judge further noted. Moreover, an assembly for a peaceful protest cannot fall within the term “unlawful assembly” under Section 141 of the IPC, the judge said, and quashed the case.