Prohibition: India
Liquor prohibition rules
From the archives of India Today , July 27, 2008
Many states tried prohibition but had to backtrack later
• The Bansi Lal government kept its election promise and introduced prohibition in Haryana in 1996. But bordered by three states, implementing the policy became difficult, giving rise to liquor mafias. Besides, the state was losing about Rs 1,100 crore a year. The policy was repealed after only 21 months.
• The N.T.Rama Rao-led TDP government declared Andhra Pradesh dry in 1995 with a clear eye on the women’s vote but prohibition was repealed by his son-in-law N. Chandrababu Naidu who seized power following a family coup in 1997.
• Tamil Nadu, dry until 1971, went wet only to revert to prohibition in 1974.Repealed dry laws in 1981 and wet since.
States could ban public consumption of cigarettes, alcohol: SC
The Times of India Jan 01 2016
W hile upholding the Ke rala government's decision to bar all hotels except five-star establishments from serving liquor, the Supreme Court also ruled that states could ban public consumption of cigarettes and alcohol even if they had not taken any step to restrict production of these two intoxicants, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra.
“Consumption of tobacco and liquor is deleterious to health... Banning public consumption of either cannot be constrained,“ said an SC bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and S K Singh.
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
‘Bihar Excise Act does not ban possession of liquor’
The Times of India, Jun 02 2016
In Bihar, mere possession of booze is no crime, says HC
The Patna high court has ruled that mere possession of liquor is not illegal as the Bihar Excise Act has provisions for penal action only in cases of “trade and consumption of alcohol“ -an interpretation that could lead to release from jail of suspended JD(U) legislator Manorama Devi, who was arrested after six liquor bottles were found in her house last month. The high court, in its order of May 26, had said the Act was silent over possession of liquor. The interim order was passed by a bench led by acting Chief Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari while hearing a petition filed by Ram Sumir Sharma, whose house in Aurangabad was sealed after liquor bottles were seized from his nephew last month. Over 3,000 raids have been conducted and over 100 people are behind bars for possessing booze. The court especially pointed out that a minute reading of Sec 19(4) of the Bihar Excise Act makes it clear that the state government has not “prohibited possession of liquor by anyone“, and unless such a notification is issued, possession of Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL) would not become an offence punishable un der the Act.
After the HC extended relief to Sharma and directed the government to remove the sealing of his house, suspended MLC Manorama Devi's counsel Y B Giri said he would seek her bail on the same grounds.
“We will inform the court that liquor was there in house before April 5, the day total prohibition was imposed, and there is no guideline in the Act that alcohol in possession should be disposed of,“ Giri said.
Some legal luminaries said the judiciary has pointed out a major lacuna in the prohibition law or at least in its “ill-informed“ implementation. They said the high court has tried to guide the legislature into making an exhaustive law.
While the phone of excise and prohibition minister Abdul Jalil Mastan was switched off, state excise and prohibition commissioner Kunwar Jung Bahadur maintained that possession of liquor is still illegal.
