Live
- Lions Club joins hands with Lendi NSS unit
- 42 gamblers held; Rs 17.34L seized
- Rights forum to take out a rally on Nov 26
- NEP will bring major changes in edu system: MP
- Cyberabad EOW arrest 8 persons for investment fraud
- Power staff remove creepers around poles
- Waqf Board has more powers than Supreme Court: MP Konda
- Govt to roll out mobile cancer screening vehicles in all dists
- VPA holds high-level review on NAVIC Cell 21
- Key leaders to take part in ‘Basti Nidra’ prog
Apex court paves way for prohibition
Highlights
At last after a long wait of 68 years one of the most cherished dreams of the Father of the Nation, introduction of prohibition, has a chance to be fulfilled as it has got a solid backing from the country’s highest court.
At last after a long wait of 68 years one of the most cherished dreams of the Father of the Nation, introduction of prohibition, has a chance to be fulfilled as it has got a solid backing from the country’s highest court.
In a recent judgment the apex court has not only upheld the ban on serving liquor in bars and restaurants in Kerala but it has also made it clear that the directive principles of the Constitution are meant to be followed.
Citing Article 47 the court said that this particular Article for introducing the prohibition is aimed at ensuring the good health and welfare of the people. Therefore, if the government wants to impose ban on the sale of liquor in bars and restaurants other than five star hotels, there is no violation of any law.
So far the powerful liquor lobby was jolly well doing the business and flourishing year after year thanks to the dirty nexus between the liquor lobby and the ruling political clan. The directive principles having been declared by the courts as not mandatory, writs were not maintainable.
However, in the latest judgment the Supreme Court has made it clear that the directive principles are not the wish list but they are meant to be followed by the State. The judgment, therefore, should be described as “truly people-oriented” verdict.
Interestingly, the introduction of sales tax by the State governments has its roots in the prohibition policy. It was mooted as a mean to offset the loss of excise revenue due to imposition of total prohibition. However, despite no imposition of total prohibition sales tax also came to be levied, thus causing the people double jeopardy.
Now, the ball is in the government’s court. The piecemeal attempts by some state governments have not yielded the desired results though their attempts are laudable. In order to make the prohibition successful, partial ban or selective ban on the manufacture, sale and consumption of liquor would be of no avail.
Further, there is a little chance of success of the prohibition if some states are declared as dry while in others liquor continues to flow unabated. Therefore, the total prohibition has to be imposed all over the country to make it really effective. Thus, now the onus falls on the Central government.
As a first step towards introduction of total prohibition the subject of prohibition should be brought within the purview of the Centre by amending the Constitution. True, in the given situation such an amendment may not be possible, but a determined Central government with strong political will can certainly do it after it achieves a majority in the Rajya Sabha.
One important question in imposing the blanket ban on liquor throughout the country needs to be considered. That is about protecting the interests of toddy tappers. In fact, in the name of toddy, a huge quantity of spurious liquor made from life- threatening chemicals is openly sold.
Compared to the number of toddy trees in the country, at least ten to fifteen times more adulterated liquor finds its way under the garb of toddy. Every year thousands of people, both young and old die after consuming such hazardous drink. Therefore, there must be a mechanism in place to identify the genuine toddy tappers and they should be given all assistance to sell Neera i.e fresh toddy water before it ferments.
Neera is a health drink and its sale should be encouraged. The government of Maharashtra has successfully done such an experiment by opening Neera Kendra on the local railway stations. Meanwhile, before the suggested constitutional amendment sees the light of the day, it would augur well if different state governments impose prohibition in their respective states immediately.
Indeed, such a step would go a long way in making the “India healthy and happy”. The loss likely to be incurred by such a welfare measure may be shared by the centre and the states by mutual consent in the wider public interest.
Wish you didn’t say that Mr dgp Legal circles are aghast at the reportedly bizarre statement of Anurag Sharma, the Telangana State Director General of Police at his annual press conference on December 30 that in order to come down heavily on the chain snatchers and to ensure that they do not come out on bail within three four days of their remand, his department has booked such cases under the relevant section of penal code of “robbery.”
In fact, a case of chain snatching would squarely fall under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with “assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person.” Gold chains and other valuables will, therefore be construed as “property.” This offence provides for the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Further, the offence is cognisable and bailable. The same is triable by any magistrate and the same is non-compoundable. On the other hand, Section 390 of IPC deals with the offence of “robbery” which says that ‘in all robberies there is either theft or extortion.” Section 392 of IPC provides for two types of punishment for robbery. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine and 2.
Rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years if robbery is committed on the high way between sunset and sun rise. Further, Section 393 of IPC deals with the attempt to commit robbery and prescribes the punishment of seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Now going by the above mentioned statement reported in a section of the press, if the chain-snatchers are booked as “robbers” with a view only to make bail difficult for them and act as a deterrent to others, then such an act legally holds no water.
The police, as is well known, cannot indiscriminately invoke a criminal section against a person at their own will and against the provisions of law. By charging an offender for a crime, the facts of which are not sufficient to prove such a charge and the oblique motive of which is against the canons of law, the police, in fact, open the gates of freedom to such an offender.
Next Story
ADVERTISEMENT
