PMK leader and lawyer K Balu of the Advocates Forum for Social Justice, an early petitioner in the case that led to the Supreme Court ban on liquor vending along highways, is confident that the order would reduce death on the roads due to drunken driving. In an interview with The Hindu on Sunday, he justifies the closure of bars attached to luxury hotels and clubs, saying the loss incurred by these establishments would be much less compared with the social costs involved for victims of accidents caused by drunken driving. Excerpts:
What prompted you to approach the court to seek closure of liquor shops along the highways?
Investigations by the Ministry of Highways and Road Transport had revealed that one major cause of road traffic accidents was drunken driving. About 6.2% of deaths due to accidents were reportedly caused by drunken drivers. The National Safety Council had in January 2004 resolved to ban sale of liquor alongside National Highways and in October 2007, the Ministry of Highways had sent a circular to all States to close down liquor shops along the National Highways but to no avail. Our party leader Dr Ramadoss has been spearheading the war against alcohol in Tamil Nadu and he shared his concerns with us. In August 2012, the Advocates Forum for Social Justice submitted to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Managing Director of TASMAC and the Minister for Prohibition to abide by the circular and close down the liquor shops along the National Highways. As the Government refused to act, we filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. In our plea, we submitted that liquor shops along National as well as State Highways should be closed. We won the case in Madras High Court, which directed the Government to close down liquor shops along National and State Highways on or before March 31, 2013. The Tamil Nadu Government, instead of implementing the order challenged it in the Supreme Court. This led to the protracted legal battle that culminated in the recent historic judgment.
What problems do you foresee in relocating of the liquor shops along the highways?
The first difficulty in relocating the shops will be the determination to implement the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit. The order says that while relocating the shops existing rules must be adhered to. It effectively means that shops cannot be opened near temples, educational institutions and residential areas. It may be difficult to find a suitable place in some areas. The court has pointed out that the judgement aims to prevent drunken driving and thus reduce road traffic accidents and related mortalities. Hence rather than trying to relocate the shops to ensure its tax revenue, State Governments should take cue from the judgement which states that “the loss due to road accidents and related mortalities and morbidities is much more than the income generated by sale of alcohol”, the State Governments should seize the opportunity and close down the shops once for all.
The Supreme Court’s order has led to closure of bars in star hotels and clubs too. Wouldn’t this adversely affect the hospitality sector? Would you favour exempting luxury hotels / clubs from the ban?
The term of reference of the judgment is to ensure prevention of drunken driving. Permitting star hotels and clubs located adjacent to highways to serve alcohol would defeat this purpose. This measure may affect the hospitality sector located along the national and state highways. However their loss is much less compared to the savings in terms of social costs spent on loss of man working days due to accident related morbidities and the devastating effect road traffic accident deaths have on families of deceased. Hence no establishment can be exempted from the court order.
Wouldn’t the ban result in smuggling of liquor on the highways? Also lorry drivers could now stock up liquor...
It may be true that nothing can prevent a determined alcoholic driver in accessing alcohol. However that would be a miniscule percentage if liquor is not available easily along the highways. The World Health Organisation also has suggested that one sure way to deter drinking is to curb easy availability of alcohol. The judgement itself mentions that though it is possible that a driver can stock up alcohol, banning sale of alcohol would largely stop drivers from consuming alcohol. Since the judgement is directed at preventing drunken driving, State Governments should commit to periodically checking drivers at toll plazas, check posts and other places for drunken driving and punish violators.
Your party leader himself had once demanded the reopening of arrack shops in Tamil Nadu...
No. Never. However our leader supported sale of toddy because it is considered to have medicinal values in Siddha system. We also supported ‘Neera’ sale.
Prohibition has failed worldwide. How could it be effective in Tamil Nadu?
Prohibition is successfully implemented in Bhutan and in some Middle East countries. Though the sale of alcohol is apparently uncontrolled in European countries they have strong mechanisms to ensure prevention of addiction. Drunken driving will attract severe punishment in Europe. You may be of any position but if found driving after consuming liquor, you will be handcuffed, arrested and remanded in custody. If found drunken you will immediately lose your job. That is not the case here. Tens of thousands of people take alcohol as the first thing in the morning and go to jobs, including government jobs. Police watch lakhs of youth consuming alcohol in TASMAC shops, come out and ride away in their bikes, fully drunk.
We need total prohibition. It must be executed at all costs.
