Abstract
In public places, liquor drinking is a debatable social and environmental issue. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 guarantees citizens that no one will be deprived of their life or personal freedom unless the legal processes do it. In public places, liquor drinking deprives one’s personal life. The liquor trade is instinctive with injury to individuals and communities and has serious issues everywhere at every age. Article 47 of the Constitution says the statute states the use of drugs and alcohol that are bad for your health unless it is for medical reasons. The State acts as a state commercial trader without adhering to the principles enunciated in the Constitution of India and neglecting the State’s public and other welfare activities. The growing number of stores in the State will harm not just the general public’s health but also the advancement of the State. According to Section 4 A of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (shortly TNP Act), whoever is intoxicated in a public place shall be imprisoned for a term extending to 3 months or with a fine extending to Rs.1000/-. Further, according to this Act, Section 4A states that this punishment is subject to the statutory exception and would also apply to a person who is otherwise not permitted to consume any liquor or intoxicated drug. This paper discussed the significant questions of the TNP Act itself, the controversial provisions of section 4A that violate section 17 (C) (1-A) of the establishment of The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), and the fact that the TASMAC retail liquor selling is against section 4A of this Act. This paper discussed the significant questions of the TNP Act itself, the controversial provisions of section 4A that violate section 17 (C) (1-A) of the establishment of The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC), and the fact that the TASMAC retail liquor selling is against section 4A of this Act.
Introduction
“All great men were free from alcoholism; they ranged from Bemand Shaw to Mahatma Gandhi. From Vedanta to Islam, every faith committed to dignity, decency, and sobriety has advocated this. If the elimination of poverty and bankruptcy will constitute patriotism, the highest priority to implementing this principle should be given to an absolute ban on alcoholism.” [2]
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
The Right to live with human dignity and a healthy environment are fundamental rights. It is ensured and protected by the Indian constitution under Article 21. The apprehension of the public Place is that if the liquor shop comes across within the public Place, the rights of the school-going students would be in peril to the women and children. They may be unable to move freely during night hours, which is a guaranteed right for every citizen. Freedom of movement is guaranteed in any part of India and within the Public Places. If any person makes any obstruction due to intoxication, the same would amount to a violation of fundamental rights. The liquor shops are in public places, threatening Public Peace and Society.
A view of the TNP Act,, 1937 and TASMAC
In India, there is no uniformity concerning liquor laws, and they vary from State to State, be it the legal drinking age or the laws controlling the distribution and use of alcoholic beverages. In the Indian Constitution, intoxicating liquors are under Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule. So, the laws governing alcohol vary from State to State. The liquor laws also list where alcohol can be sold in the States. In some states, Liquor is sold at groceries, department stores, banquet halls, and farmhouses, but some tourist areas have special laws that allow the sale of alcohol on beaches and houseboats. Some states even ban the sale of Liquor in its entirety.[3]
Ultimately, Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937 before the independence of India. In Tamil Nadu, the law on Prohibition was passed in 1937, and the Madras Prohibition Act was enacted in 1937. It imposed a total prohibition. Late C. Rajagopalachari, the then Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, introduced a total ban across the Salem District in 1937 under the Madras Prohibition Act of 1937. This Act was later renamed—the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937 after the reorganization of the State in 1956. As mentioned above, The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937 predates the Indian Constitution. It provides for complete Prohibition. The Preamble to The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (formerly The Madras Prohibition Act of 1937), as it stands even today, clearly declares it as an Act to introduce and extend the Prohibition of the manufacture, sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors and drugs. The preamble itself makes it clear that it is expedient as early as possible to bring about Prohibition except for medicinal, scientific, industrial or such like purpose of the production, manufacture, possession, export, import, transport, purchase, sale and luncheon of intoxicating liquors and drugs in the State of Tamil Nadu. Ironically, practice and subsequent amendments to the Act contradict the preamble and Constitution of India.[4]
The TNP Act did not eradicate liquor consumption, and it prohibited Liquor. The Act forbids Liquor, including toddy or arrack, spirits or wine spirits, also referred to as denatured spirits, wine, beer, and all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol. Section 54(1) of the Act empowers the government to make rules to carry into effect its provisions on the issue of licenses and permits; prescribing penalties for wastage or shortage of spirits above the specified limits; procedure as to denature spirit; disposal of articles confiscated and of the proceeds thereof; for the collection of duties on all kinds of liquor/drugs; exemption from or suspension of the operation of any rule made under this Act; authorizing any officers or persons to exercise any power; and perform any duty under this Act. According to the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC), a State government-owned company, controls the wholesale and retail vending of alcoholic beverages in the State. Introduced in 1983 by the MGR-led AIADMK government, TASMAC shops were brought in as the only wholesale traders of arrack and Indian-made foreign spirits (IMFS).[5]
Why does the state engage in the business of liquor?
“Liquor -ruins country, family and life,”[6] Nonetheless, the state government of Tamil Nadu sells the alcohol through TASMAC Shops. The state government’s sale of alcohol through Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) stores was attacked by actor Kamal Haasan, who also recommended that the government put more emphasis on education and health. Haasan addressed about 8,000 students at an event organized by the Matram Foundation near Chennai. “That’s not their job. It’s enough if the government supervises the liquor trade. There is no need to get waist or neck deep in Liquor. They must take a similar plunge in health and education,” Kamal Hasaan said.[7] But scientifically, the State was burdened to sell the Liquor. The main reason is that if the State does not sell the Liquor, the illicit Liquor spreads to the State. If the State does not sell the Liquor, some bootleggers and mafia gangsters will sell the Liquor.
The recent hooch tragedy in Kallakurichi, Tamil Nadu, in which 61 people died after consuming methanol-spiked moonshine, has triggered State-wide concern over the rampant availability of illicit Liquor. On June 24, The Hindu reported that over 100 people were admitted to government hospitals in Kallakurichi, Villupuram, Salem, and Puducherry. Inadequate policies and the ineffectiveness of local authorities in curbing the sale of hooch have come to the fore. TN is no stranger to hooch tragedies. Deaths due to consumption of illicit Liquor can be traced back to the mid-1970s. In April 2016, Scroll. It is reported that the first hooch-related deaths, post-independence, took Place in 1975 and 1976. Fast forward to recent years, data released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) show that there were 20 hooch-related deaths in 2020, six in 2021, and 16 in 2022[8].
The State witnessed an enormous tragedy in May 2008 in the border villages of Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu and Kolar in Karnataka. Nearly 180 people, around 60 in Krishnagiri district and the rest in Kolar and Bangalore suburbs, died after consuming a brew containing methyl alcohol. There has been a demand from all quarters that the chemical should be mixed with substances to give it either a bitter taste or foul smell to prevent its abuse, as seen in Kallakurichi and other hooch tragedies. “Laws are there. However, the execution is still delayed, which results in severe human tragedies. In 2002, an illicit liquor incident occurred in Tamil Nadu, which claimed the lives of more than 100 individuals. Consuming fake alcohol that was tainted with harmful chemicals had disastrous results. In response, the government implemented policies to lower the price of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) to lessen the demand for illegal substitutes.
The AIADMK decided to reinstate IMFL retail in 2003, but only under state supervision. Up until then, TASMAC operated as a wholesale trader. Since then, it has pulled off a coup and gained control of over 7,000 liquor stores around the State. It is now the only IMFL retailer, enabling it to form a fifth of the State’s revenues. This policy, as the Tamil Nadu Commissionerate of Prohibition and Excise notes in its history of the flip-flops, “continues till date.”[9]
The Tamil Nadu state chooses to eradicate the illicit distillation and sale of illegal arrack and non-excised Liquor across the State through the TASMAC retail sales. The State assumes that TASMAC sells Liquor to prevent unlawful attacks. But hooch tragedies happened many times after the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the TASMAC decided to retail liquor selling.
Public Place
In Black’s Law Dictionary, a “public place” is generally defined as a location accessible to the general public. It can include areas such as parks, streets, and public buildings. The term is often used in legal contexts to describe places where specific laws and regulations apply, such as those related to public behaviour, safety, and order.[10]
In the TNP Act, the Public Place is only in this Act in section 4A. After the Kallakurichy incident, the State amended the Act, including Place. It states house, shed, enclosure, building, shop, tent, booth, vehicle, cart and vessel. There isn’t much information about public places in the General Clauses Act, but here’s some related information about the Act in section 2(48): “public nuisance” shall mean a public nuisance as defined in the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court held that smoking in public places deprives the Right to life of passive smokers. Upon realizing the gravity of the situation and considering the adverse effect of smoking on smokers and passive smokers, the Supreme Court directed and prohibited smoking in public places. It also issued directions to the Union of India, State Governments as well and the Union Territories to take practical measures to guarantee that smoking is prohibited in public areas, including auditoriums, hospital buildings, health facilities, educational institutions, libraries, court buildings, and public office Public conveyances including railways.[11] Recently, the TNP Act 2024 Amendment, the Act included in Section 2(7), states that Place also consists of a house, shed, enclosure, building, shop, tent, booth, vehicle, cart and vessel;”
Whether TASMAC selling liquor violates Section 4A of the TNP Act, 1937?
Chapter 3 of the TNP Act 1937 deals with TASMAC. Now, the Primary question raised itself in the Act Section 4A. The provision was interpreted by the Honourable Madras High Court in S. Jagannathan v. The Managing Director (2021)[12]. Also, the above question answered the question and provided an unresolved question in this judgment.
“117. Thus, there is an embargo under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937. A person intoxicated in any “public place” is punishable for an offence under the Act. A person consuming Liquor in a bar only goes for a few pegs. Chances are that such a person goes there to get fully intoxicated. This Bar facilitates such an environment.
123. The amendment was intended to implement the government policy under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937. It aligned with the total Prohibition from 1976 to Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
128. In 2003, when Section 17-C (1-B) was introduced from the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, along with Section 22-D to the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, Section 4A still needed to be amended. As a result of the above amendment, liquor retail sales were also exclusively given to the respondents TASMAC.
130. However, no corresponding amendment to Section 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, has yet to be made. Thus, the Prohibition against alcohol consumption and intoxicating Liquor in public places continues in the State.
132. Section 4A does not encourage a person to consume Liquor and intoxicating drugs who is not entitled to consume even in a private place, as mentioned above. Such consumption is still punishable under the Act. Though an amendment was made in 1989 by reducing punishment to 3 months, it should be underlined that there is no scope for a person to be intoxicated in a “public place” under the Scheme of the Act.
134. It is to be further underlined that a person choosing to consume the Liquor purchased from the TASMAC shop in the Bar goes only to get intoxicated.
The Honorable High Court discussed Public Place and Section 4A of the TNP Act. However, the writ court had not answered the controversy of liquor banning. The Hon’ble Court went to the Prayer of the Petition. The Honorable High Court has broad jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu. The Hon’ble High Court had not to answer the question of the legitimacy of the TASMAC retail sales.
Whether section 17 (C) (1-A) (a) itself violates of section 4A of TNP ACT, 1937?
Under Section 17 (C) (1-A) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the TASMAC was established. It allows a to do wholesale and retail business. The above provisions plain reading statute interpretation the commoner understand the violates of the sections itself contrary. But no person challenged the contrary sections.
The valuable reference made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court stated in S. Jagannathan v. The Managing Director (2021) held, “TASMAC cannot be seen permitting consumption by liquor consumers in a public place. Even if the Bar is not public, a person who consumes Liquor in the so-called Bar will have to pass through a public place to return home. Therefore, what TASMAC cannot do directly, it cannot do indirectly”.
However, the court did not strike down the TASMAC establishment provision. The TASMAC sells Liquor at retail price and consumes the TASMAC attached bars to violative section 4A of the TNP Act. Any person consuming Liquor in a public place is dangerous to other people.
Conclusion
The State cannot provide free education, even though it sells Liquor through TASMAC shops. It is 84 years since the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, was enacted. Yet, Prohibition, as of date, is not a reality. On the contrary, the sale of Liquor by the government through 5,358 retail outlets has turned out to be the most lucrative revenue source, which the Madras High Court has lamented. Justice Anita Sumanth expressed her anguish while quashing a tender notification issued by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) on August 2, 2022, inviting bids for selling eatables at the bars attached to its retail liquor shops and also to collect empty liquor bottles from there.[13]
The TASMAC income is Rs.45,855.67 crores.[14] But the State’s tax revenue is Rs.1,95,173 crores.[15] So, the TASMAC revenue expended in welfare schemes, which argument is not accepted. The welfare state should not state any defence for not implementing the people’s welfare Scheme. On Monday, the Director General of Police (DGP) informed the Madras High Court that 4.22 lakh drunken driving cases were filed in the State between January 2019 and February 2022, and a fine of Rs.18.70 crore was collected from the offenders. He also said that 1,108 road accidents occurred between 2018 and February 2022 due to drunken driving and that 262 So, the TASMAC revenue expended in welfare schemes, which argument is not accepted. The welfare state should not state any defence for not implementing the people’s welfare Scheme. The Director General of Police (DGP) informed the Madras High Court that 4.22 lakh drunken driving cases were filed in the State between January 2019 and February 2022, and a fine of Rs.18.70 crore was collected from the offenders. He also said that 1,108 road accidents had taken Place between 2018 and February 2022 due to drunken driving and that 262 people were killed in those accidents.[16] However, the honourable Madras High Court observed that consuming alcohol per se is not an offence. The State is the only provider of alcohol to the citizens through the IMFL shops run by them. Given this, it is the sole responsibility of the State to take care of the consequences arising from the consumption of Liquor.[17]
The TNP Act can control liquor prohibition. However, no corresponding amendment to Section 4A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, has yet to be made. Thus, the ban on the consumption of alcohol and intoxicating Liquor in Public places continues in the State. So, strictly, TASMAC Shops shall not sell Liquor for retail price. Also, the State shall restrict liquor consumption inside the Bar and enforce strict punishment in case of violation. The author suggests framing the Policy for implementing Section 4A of the TNP Act, and also Essential to Section 4A are the contrary rules of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Possession for Personal Consumption) Rules, 1996, which shall be repealed and steps taken by the State.
Let us examine the scenario in which the State claims championship in public health, and it claims that it has introduced several schemes for the welfare of the public. They are in force, but it has also permitted several State-owned TASMAC shops to be operated simultaneously. The message to the citizens is that they consume alcohol in Government shops, and the State is equipped with Ambulance ‘108’ to provide the best treatment in the Government General Hospital. The attitude of the State is to be construed as ‘pinching the child and swinging the hammock’. The State cannot adopt such a policy, and the State, functioning for the public’s welfare, has to adopt a pragmatic approach to implementing directive principles of the state policy enshrined in the Constitution of India.[18]
[2] The Hindu, Evil of drink (2010), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/Evil-of-drink/article16837322.ece (last visited September 26, 2024).
[3] Liquor and Alcohol Drinking laws in India | Age, Punishment for Public Drinking, lawrato.com (2024), https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/criminal-law/liquor-and-alcohol-drinking-laws-in-india-age-punishment-for-public-drinking-646 (last visited September 26, 2024).
[4] Lohith Kumar, The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 – blinkvisa.com, blinkvisa.com (2023), https://blinkvisa.com/blog/the-tamil-nadu-prohibition-act-1937/ (last visited September 11, 2024).
[5] Saatvika Radhakrishna, Tamil Nadu’s Liquor Dilemma: Policies Fail to Cork Hooch Menace, Frontline (2024), https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/tamil-nadu-kallakurichi-hooch-tragedy-illicit-liquor-tasmac-drugs-death/article68449029.ece (last visited October 16, 2024).
[6] Rule 10 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.
[7] SNS, Kamal Haasan criticizes state govt for selling Liquor through TASMAC shops, The Statesman (2018), https://www.thestatesman.com/cities/kamal-haasan-criticises-state-govt-for-selling-liquor-through-tasmac-shops-1502574698.html (last visited October 16, 2024).
[8] Saatvika Radhakrishna, Tamil Nadu’s Liquor Dilemma: Policies Fail to Cork Hooch Menace, Frontline (2024), https://frontline.thehindu.com/society/tamil-nadu-kallakurichi-hooch-tragedy-illicit-liquor-tasmac-drugs-death/article68449029.ece (last visited October 16, 2024).
[9] Mridula Chari, The long and twisted history of Prohibition in Tamil Nadu, Scroll. in (2016), https://scroll.in/article/806448/the-long-and-twisted-history-of-prohibition-in-tamil-nadu (last visited October 16, 2024).
[10] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY®, ISBN 0-314-76271-X, 6th edn.,
[11] Murli S. Deora vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40.
[12] S. Jagannathan vs. The Managing Director, W.P. Nos. 27352 of 2021, decided on January 31, 2022, by the Madras High Court)
[13] Mohamed Imranullah S, 84 years since Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of 1937, but Prohibition is not yet a reality, laments Madras HC, The Hindu (2022), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/84-years-since-tamil-nadu-prohibition-act-of-1937-but-prohibition-is-not-yet-a-reality-laments-madras-hc/article65997108.ece (last visited October 16, 2024).
[14] Prohibition and Excise Policy Note 2024-2025
[15] Government of Tamil Nadu Budget 2024-2025
[16] Mohamed Imranullah S, Rs. 18.70 crore fine collected due to drunken driving in last three years, DGP tells HC, The Hindu (2022), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/rs-1870-crore-fine-collected-due-to-drunken-driving-in-last-three-years-dgp-tells-hc/article65545831.ece (last visited October 16, 2024).
[17] Ramesh vs Selavakumar and Ors, CMA No. 2494 of 2022, date of Judgement 16.10.2024 (Mad HC).
[18] S. Sellasamy vs The District Collector, on May 11, 2017 (Madras HC).
