Oblivious to its 2021 pre-Assembly poll promises to shut down liquor shops in the state upon assuming power, the DMK government’s assurance remains only on paper. The state garners nearly Rs 50,000 to Rs 60,000 crore in revenue from selling Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) through state-owned TASMAC outlets, which were recently raided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged irregularities amounting to Rs 1,000 crore. The Supreme Court has stayed the ED probe until its next hearing, scheduled after the Court reopens following the summer vacation.
Against this backdrop, Madras High Court’s division bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete observed: “It is paradoxical for a welfare state to establish hospitals and simultaneously open TASMAC outlets. It is a constitutional philosophy, and the Directive Principles insist that a welfare government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops, which adversely affect public health. Undoubtedly, a TASMAC shop may cause a nuisance to road users in the locality, particularly to children during school hours… It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to citizens and road users.”
The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by A. Kannan, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents—namely, the Managing Director, TASMAC; the District Collector, Dindigul; and the District Manager, TASMAC—to forthwith close TASMAC Shop No. 3110, situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town, based on his representation dated November 9, 2024. He sought a direction to shut down the TASMAC outlet, citing that the road is frequented by schoolchildren and other road users who find it difficult to use the route safely and peacefully.
In his counter affidavit, the District Manager claimed, “The petitioner’s assertions regarding the proximity of various institutions—namely, the CSI Sester Primary School being 30 metres away, Tattli Secondary School at 50 metres, the CSI Church at a short distance, and the Government Hospital at 100 metres—are incorrect. The TASMAC shop is situated within the Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance is 50 metres, as per Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 (in short, Rules 2003). Since the shop is situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules 2003 states that the distance restriction shall not apply.”
After hearing submissions from both sides, the Court, in its order dated June 3, stated: “When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that prohibition is implemented gradually in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health. Undoubtedly, a TASMAC shop may cause a nuisance to road users in the locality, particularly to children during school hours. It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to citizens and road users.”
The bench emphasised: “Article 47 of the Constitution of India directs that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties, and in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption—except for medicinal purposes—of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health.”
The judges reiterated: “It is a constitutional philosophy, and the Directive Principles insist that a welfare government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more TASMAC shops which adversely affect public health.”
The bench concluded: “It is contradictory for a welfare government to establish more hospitals on the one hand and simultaneously establish TASMAC shops on the other. This is not in consonance with constitutional ethos. When the right to health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that prohibition is implemented gradually to reduce harm to public health. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that mere guidelines or rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the very same road is used by children to reach their school and serves as a direct pathway. Consequently, the TASMAC shop would undoubtedly cause a public nuisance to road users, children attending school, and persons going to church, etc.”
The Court directed: “Respondents are directed to forthwith close TASMAC Shop No. 3110, situated at Trichy Road, Dindigul Town, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
In a related development on 20th May near Pattabiram Bus Stand on the Tiruttani-Chennai-Tirupathi National Highway, TASMAC decided to open a new outlet and brought in liquor consignments. However, local residents opposed the move and submitted a petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and Superintendent of Police (SP). To their surprise, the next day a heavy police contingent was deployed to inaugurate the new outlet. Vans and buses were arranged to take protestors into custody.
Despite their two-day protest, the outlet is now operational. The State government seems intent on opening more outlets, instead of closing them in a phased manner as promised earlier.
Comments