Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking National Level Liquor Prohibition Policy

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation which sought for a national policy for prevention of alcohol.

At the outset, the petitioner submitted that while certain states had completely prohibited liquor, others had encouraged the sale of the same. While providing governmental reports on the serious impact of alcohol, he submitted that a small population of the country was seriously addicted to alcohol and the Centre had made no policy regarding the subject even though the concurrent list gave the power to the Central government to frame policies on the matter. 

The CJI was not convinced with the argument and stated that–

"But then, we will be virtually commanding them to have policies on this. It is their discretion when it comes to concurrent list. Correct? Because there are state-level legislations which are in the field, therefore the union agencies may as per their discretion decide if they wish to intervene."

The petitioner continued his arguments and stated that for the centre to leave the field completely unregulated was incorrect. He stated that those addicted to liquor had violent tendencies which not just affected the society at large but specifically had a bad impact on children. However, CJI Lalit stated–

"These are not purely matters for social reform. Integrally connected with them is the revenue issue. And many of the states depend upon the revenue which is generated from liquor. If we try to do something, what will happen with the sources of revenue? And those revenues might be in turn utilised for social upliftment...These are not matters for the court to enter into."

Justice Bhat added–

"Even if we ask the government, and the government comes out with something and we direct them to study, then we say make a law. They say we won't. Do we make the guidelines ourselves?"

The CJI stated that "if we go in one direction, it would pull the state revenue in another direction."

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 

Viniyog Parivar Trust v. UOI