The Supreme Court has said that prohibition does not end alcohol addiction or deaths caused by illicit liquor. The court said that forced prohibition is not a solution to the problem of alcohol.
A bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala said that prohibition had been in force in Gujarat for decades, but deaths caused by illicit liquor had not stopped. More than 600 people were killed in 10 major incidents involving methanol-laced liquor.
The Supreme Court made the observation on 18 September while delivering its verdict striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.
The court also referred to recent incidents in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. Around 13 and 15 people, respectively, had died in these incidents.
The court said that a complete ban on alcohol drives the liquor trade underground. This leads to an increase in the circulation of unregulated, poisonous liquor.
It said that Gujarat had enforced strict prohibition since 1960. Despite this, methanol-laced illicit liquor had repeatedly caused serious public health crises.
The judgment said, “Around 13 and 15 people died in recent incidents involving poisonous liquor in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, respectively. These incidents serve as a reminder to the authorities to wake up again and take action.”
Court lists five disadvantages of prohibition
The court outlined five “disadvantages” associated with prohibition. These include the loss of tax revenue, the cost of enforcing prohibition and the diversion of substantial funds.
Other disadvantages include corruption in the police and excise departments, the production of illicit liquor and the resulting threat of narcotic substances.
Hearing on plea challenging Maharashtra rules
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition challenging Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules.
The rules prohibited the purchase of methanol. They also made it mandatory to add a bittering agent and colour to methanol before selling it to non-pharmaceutical manufacturers.
These rules were introduced after people died from drinking counterfeit liquor bought from Chhaya Bar in Mumbai in 1991. A total of 250 people drank the liquor, 93 of whom died.
It was later found that they had consumed methanol. Methanol is no less dangerous than poison.
The court described these rules as unconstitutional and arbitrary. It said they had placed a heavy financial burden on industries.
According to the court, these rules do not address the underlying problems that lead to incidents involving toxic liquor. These include the theft of methanol, its diversion to unauthorised locations and institutional corruption.
Directions to stop the supply of illicit liquor
The bench issued several directions, including the need to break the link between the supply and demand for liquor.
The court also called for increased surveillance along interstate borders to prevent the illegal transportation of liquor.
The court said that many municipal corporation school premises consist of open grounds. These are often used to store illicit liquor.
The court advised governments to monitor industrial units that manufacture chemical solvents. Such units illegally sell these solvents to illicit liquor producers.
The Supreme Court said methanol should be transported in separate tankers or containers. This would eliminate the possibility of methanol being stolen or replaced with another substance.
