The Supreme Court has on Monday dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by K R Ramasamy, alias Traffic Ramaswamy, challenging the liquor policy of the Tamil Nadu government. The petitioner sought a writ of declaration to declare the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 2003 amending Section 17-C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and inserting sub-section (1-B) as unconstitutional. The Madras High Court had earlier dismissed his writ petition on the same issue.
As soon as the hearing commenced, a Bench comprising Justice D K Jain and Justice Madan B Lokur said, “You are Traffic Ramaswamy. Why did you select this name? Why did you prefer it?” To this, senior counsel M N Krishnamani, appearing for Traffic Ramaswamy said, “He was only Ramasamy. He was helping cops in traffic movement in Chennai. That’s how he came to be known as Traffic Ramaswamy.” “Now, we’ll have to call you ‘Alcohol Ramaswamy,” Justice Jain remarked in jest as his petition related to consumption of alcohol. “We could get from your petition that public sector should not deal with sale and distribution of alcohol,” Justice Jain added.“Where is the constitutional provision saying government should not get involved,” Justice Jain questioned.
To this, Krishnamani said, “It is implied in Article 47 (…the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition). While the Article 47 says so, Tamil Nadu government constituting a 100 per cent corporation to indulge in sale of liquor is against the constitutional principles.”
“Though nobody can enforce Directive Principles of State Policy in a positive way, it is not open for the State government to go back on those principles and in reverse direction,” Krishnamai argued. “In the light of this, the government cannot create a 100 per cent company dealing in alcohol,” Krishnamani added.
“Can it be done?” asked Justice Jain. “In Gujarat it was done,” replied Krishnamani and stated that there was an Act called the TN Prohibition Act of 1937 which dealt with prohibition. But it was not being implemented. Now they were constituting a 100 percent-owned company (to deal with sale and distribution of liquor,” the counsel added. “There are reports that so many people are killed in accidents because of consumption of alcohol. Women are not able to walk on public roads past 10 pm because of this. How can State indulge in liquor business,” the counsel asked.
