Prohibition: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
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 The policy was repealed after only 21 months.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Rao-led TDP government declared Andhra Pradesh dry in 1995 with a clear eye on the women’s vote but prohibition was repealed by his son-in-law N. Chandrababu Naidu who seized power following a family coup in 1997.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Repealed dry laws in 1981 and wet since.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.
Bihar
‘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.
2016/ HC: Existing Act “draconian;“ State govt. Brings new law
Just hours after the Patna high court quashed the Bihar prohibition law on 30 Sept 2016 , causing spirits to rise among tipplers in the state, the Nitish Kumar government announced in the evening it would notify the new Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, already passed by the state legislature, on Gandhi Jayanti, October 2.
Earlier in the day, the HC allowed an appeal by a host of petitioners against the Act that banned the sale and consumption of India-made foreign liquor (IMFL) in the state.
Referring to the harsh provisions in the existing Act, including confiscation of properties of liquor traders and a community fine on villages where liquor was manufactured, the court described the law as “draconian“ and said it “can't be justified in a civilised society“. The division bench of Chief Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh quoted a Supreme Court ruling in its order. However the state government said the court order would not stop the new law coming into effect from Sunday .“There's no doubt about enforcement of the new law,“ Bihar principal additional advocate general Lalit Kishore said. The HC order, Bihar principal additional advocate general Lalit Kishore explained to the CM and senior state officials, struck down the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, which made trade and consumption of IMFL across the state illegal since April 5.“The court order has termed only one Section 19(4) of the previous Act `ultra vires'. It does not say anything about the revised Act passed by both Houses of the state legislature. It is already an Act. It will be notified on October 2,“ Kishore told TOI.
He said the two Acts are different. “Only one section (19-4) of the annulled Act empowered the state government to enforce prohibition. But the new law is entirely about prohibition,“ he said.
