Drunken driving is a menace. It is a danger to every other user of the highway and a zero tolerance policy is essential. Liquor shops with bold advertisements adorning the highway are an invitation, if not an enticement, to the passing motorist to have a quick drink. Something to be prevented at any cost! That it is the duty of the state, either through legislation or executive action to take stringent measures against the mushrooming of such shops is self-evident.
The reluctance of the state to take necessary action and risk losing thousands of crores in revenue is a matter of grave concern! That states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have a monopoly on such retail sale of liquor, and are financial beneficiaries of the practice compounds the mischief. Repeated entreaties by the court that government take corrective measures met with negligible (if no) response.
Finally, left with no alternative, the courts took matters into their own hands tracing their source of power to Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing life and liberty to all citizens and mandating a corresponding duty on the state. After all, the majority of users of highways in deathly peril of losing life and limb at the hands of drunken motorists have a right to demand under Article 21 that the state protect their interests and the courts, in the backdrop of the government’s apathy, justifiably stepped in.
The inherent weakness in any branch of the state taking over the functions of another is their lack of expertise. A writ could indeed be issued by the court to subserve a Constitutional objective, but the devil is always in the detail with courts not having the expertise.
The result, therefore, is that while the direction to remove liquor vends from the highways was unquestionably correct and necessary, the specifics as to the distance to apply for such embargo; the areas where it was to be imposed; the nature of activity that needed to be curbed were matters of intricate detail to be worked out after appraisal of all facts and circumstances.
The order of the court was simple. Move all liquor vends 500 metre away from the national and state highways. But in its wake, the order was fraught with various anomalies.
The fact that such highways run through cities and towns and villages was not considered. The effect was multiple applications filed to highlight the natural and possibly unintended consequences of such blanket ban.
If Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits unlikes being treated as likes, how could a highway between cities be equated with roads albeit designated as highways running through cities and being used as domestic roads? If 500 metres was not a large distance for a metropolis, in the case of small towns and villages 500 metres on each side may even be wider than the limits of the town or village itself with all habitation, commercial and residential, within the 500 metres. In hilly areas, 500 metres would plunge one down the mountainside! While the judgment itself dealt only with liquor shops or vends, the final directions extended to all sales of liquor.
The answer to these applications by the court made the cure worse than the disease and a literal rewrite of the original judgment. Suddenly, brought within the dragnet were restaurants, bars, hotels and clubs. Five-star luxury hotels (a must for tourism) can no longer serve liquor in their restaurants, banquet halls or even to their guests. Iconic clubs are barred from serving drinks to their members.
Delicious meals in gourmet restaurants can no longer be accompanied with a glass of wine. And how will this eliminate drunken driving on a highway? Surely, the resident of a city who goes out for dinner or to his club is not the cause of death on a highway due to drunken driving. Nor is the hapless tourist having a nightcap at his hotel.
Residents of small towns and villages applying this rule can no longer have a drink. How, one is forced to ask oneself, can this be a balanced means of curbing drunken driving on a highway? Or is the purpose to ensure that no liquor is available and, therefore, obviate any chance of drunken driving?
But then, why not just impose an absolute prohibition on the consumption of liquor in India? And to solve errant behaviour by some, curb the pleasure of a responsible majority! If this be the purpose, was it the court’s function or within the scope of the case the court was hearing? Especially when it is the courts which are all along so vigilant to ensure that the country does not slip into the vice of intolerance which is spreading like a pestilence!
aryama_sundaram@hotmail.com