Kerela Prohibition Policy

The Supreme Court of India recently upheld Kerala Governments decision to

restrict alcohol consumption in the state. In doing so, the court invoked the
Directive Principles in the Constitution and claimed that strict state regulation is
imperative to discourage regular and excessive consumption of alcohol.
Kerala government came out with this policy with the noble objective of
protecting public health
and nutrition. The closure of hundreds of bars across the State despite
substantial loss in states revenue deserves praise.
However, this policy has not found favour from all quarters.
Arguments, against this decision:
-Historical evidence shows that prohibition does not encourage or enable people
to quit drinking.
Rather, prohibition tends to drive the trade underground and creates a market
for spurious liquor.
-This policy is just a populist decision impelled by factional politics within the
ruling party.
-The policy may only help to shift the drinking space from bar to home or other
private spaces.
-This policy may lead to increase in the sale of consumption of beer and wine,
which is a gateway to
the consumption of hard liquor.
Arguments, in support of this policy:
The following arguments indicate that such ban was the need of the hour.
-The Constitution itself, in Article 47, requires States to make an endeavour
towards improving public health, including by bringing about prohibition of the
consumption of liquor.
-Strict state regulation is imperative to discourage regular and excessive
consumption of alcohol.
-Alcohol denudes family resources and reserves and leaves women and children
as its most
vulnerable victims. A social stigma at least as far as the family unit is concerned
is still attached to the consumption of alcohol.
-Vulnerable persons, either because of age or proclivity towards intoxication or as
a feature of peer
pressure, more often than not, succumb to this temptation.
-According to the Alcohol and Drug Information Centre of Thiruvananthapuram,
44% of Keralas road
accidents, 19% of stays in government hospitals and 80% divorces are linked to
alcohol abuse.
-The drinking age is dangerously coming down. This clearly indicates alcohol has
become a social
sickness and we have to treat it.
-Alcoholism does also critically impacts the household budgets of the poor and
may lead to domestic
violence.
Issue of differential treatment:
The liquor policy allowed service of liquor at bars in five star hotels only. Kerala
Bar Hotels Association raised challenge to this on two primary grounds: first,
violation of their right, under Article 19(1)(g), to practise any profession, or to

carry on any occupation, trade or business. Second, in permitting only five-star

hotels alone to serve liquor in public, the new policy had made an unreasonable
classification, by treating persons on an equal standing unequally, and therefore
violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Apex court uphold the liquor policy under
which the sale and consumption of liquor at the bars in hotels below five star is
prohibited.
Why five-star hotels are excluded?
-To protect the tourism industry.
-Five-star hotels account for just .08% of alcohol consumption in the State.
-Prices/tariff of alcohol in five-star hotels is usually prohibitively high, which acts
as a deterrent to individuals going in for binge or even casual drinking.
-The guests in five-star hotels are of a mature age and do not visit these hotels
with the sole
purpose of consuming alcohol.
-There was no hostile discrimination made by the state government in making an
exception for only five star hotels, as classification of star gradation of hotels is
done by the Ministry of Tourism, not by state Govt.
- The liberty to freely carry on any trade or business is subject to reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed by the state in the interest of the general
public. In fact, in 1994, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, explicitly questioned whether any right to
trade in alcoholic beverages even flowed from our Constitution.
-The court also notes that there is a reasonable nexus between the policy
exempting five-star
hotels and the States objective to rescue public health.
Arguments, against this exemption:
-The apex courts decision seems unreasonable and arbitrary. Such preferential
treatment discriminates against a large segment of the tourism industry and
ignores their right to a level playing field.
-If the consumption of liquor is a social problem, it should be so for all. Halfway
measures can
complicate issues.
-The changes in the liquor policy were ostensibly brought through with the view
of promoting prohibition, and thereby improving the standard of public health in
the State. And how can this special treatment of five-star hotels possibly help the
government in achieving these objectives?
Previous experiences:
Haryana: Prohibition in the state was imposed in 1996. In the very first year,
revenues dropped Rs 1,200 crore, and women complained about their husbands
deserting their homes for places where they could drink. Also illicit brewing and
smuggling continued, and drugs made their way into the state. The government
withdrew prohibition after 19 months.
Gujarat: Prohibition has been in place since 1960, first under Bombay Prohibition
Act, 1949, and now under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 2011, following several
amendments. Every city, however, has bootleggers and an illegal interstate
business thrives, estimated at around Rs 1,500 crore annually.
Similar is the situation in states like Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland
etc.
Conclusion:
While total prohibition may be a laudable objective and one of the Directive

Principles of State Policy, it is doubtful whether confining drinking to homes and

private spaces by itself will bring down consumption. In a non-permissive society,
it may only result in converting drinking into a covert activity, a phenomenon
requiring policing and also bringing corruption in its wake. The apex courts
verdict places a heavy burden on the State to rehabilitate those left unemployed
by the closure of hundreds of bars, as well as to make its policy succeed. It also
needs to ensure that the sweeping discretion conferred on it to differentiate
between classes of licensees is not misused for any extraneous considerations.