Prohibition law: time to find a way!

The issue of prohibition has been once again in news! This time, it is due to the concern shown by the apex court. It is not on the ground about the need for such a law or any allegation of its violation; but it is mainly about the 'over- burdening' courts due to the strict enforcement of the law by the Bihar government. The state government, however, has agreed to amend the laws suitably.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India is one of the Directive Principles which directs the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. Further, Article 38 states that State and Union governments, as duty, shall make further detailed policies and laws for implementation considering the Directive Principles as fundamental policy.

At present, Bihar, Gujarat, Mizoram and Nagaland have passed laws imposing prohibition on manufacture, distribution, marketing and consumption of intoxicants including liquor. On the other hand,the States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Haryana, Kerala, Manipur and Tamil Nadu have previously enforced but later repealed the laws on prohibition under one pretext or the other.

Needless to say that among the advocates for prohibition were, prominent personalities such as, Mahatma Gandhi, C Rajagopalachary, Vinoba Bhave, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Thakkar Bapa, Ravishankar Maharaj, Barrister Prabhudas Patwari and a host of freedom fighters. Through their untiring efforts, the country was ready to embrace prohibition when India became free. However, the argument of revenue generation was advanced by the first

government after Independence to which it was agreed that the governments will be free to impose sales tax at the state and central levels so that the loss due to implementation of prohibition can be offset.

Unfortunately, this gentleman agreement has been violated by the successive governments. While the sales tax, commercial tax or goods and services tax continues to fill the coffers of governments, prohibition has been mocked, side-tracked and regarded as the old fashioned ideology.

For such a sorry state of affairs several factors are to be blamed. First, a combined reading of Articles 47 and 38 cited supra, make it as the basic paramount duty of the State to enact necessary laws for prohibition and devise proper mechanism to ensure strict implementation of such laws. Unfortunately, the courts treat the Directive Principles as not mandatory for the governments to follow; and therefore, refrain from passing writs or mandatory enforceable directions. This is not just a legal lacunae, but a well-thought over ploy to skirt the very important Constitutional provision from judicial scanner. Hence, the first and foremost need of the hour is to declare prohibition as a fundamental right. If the lawmakers do not do this, the judiciary should come forward and use its suo motu powers granted to the higher courts by the Constitution.

Among other factors for the lackluster approach to the issue of prohibition are, to put in nutshell: vested interests of the liquor manufacturers and traders, corruption among regulatory and enforcement authorities, a large scale presence of drunkards in media world and agencies responsible for implementation and enforcement of laws relating to prohibition etc.

Hope, some political party not dominated by drunkards or the people attached to liquor trade would incorporate prohibition as an electoral promise in its manifesto for the next general elections.

SC TURNS DOWN PLEA FOR QUOTA IN NDA

On March 8, the apex court turned down a plea seeking reservation for Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in the National Defence Academy (NDA).

A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M Sundresh observed: " …armed Forces are a homogenous unit. You cannot segregate them on the basis of caste." This observation came in course of hearing of an intervention application seeking caste-based quota filed by one, Kailas More in Kush Kalra Vs. Union of India which is relating to induction of women in NDA.

DELHI HC PASSES JOHN DOE ORDER

The Delhi High Court passed a John Doe order granting interim relief to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit. John Doe orders are blanket cease and desist injunctions that are issued against anonymous entities. Such orders are usually issued in suits involving an infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), since it is often practically impossible to track down every offender.

Justice Pratibha M. Singh in her order passed in the case entitled, Dabur Vs. Ashok Kumar said that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case and that grave loss would be caused to him if the interim order was not granted. The Court also directed the Central government to issue orders to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block all websites bearing the mark 'Dabur' except those of the plaintiff.

COURT IMPOSES Rs 10L COST ON FILM MAKER

The Ranga Reddy District Court at Kukatpally while dismissing a plea seeking to restrain the release of a film, entitled 'Jhund', imposed the

cost of Rs.10 lakh to be deposited in the PM's Covid Relief Fund for

suppressing material facts from the court, on a filmmaker, Nandi Chinni Kumar. Earlier, he had filed a case against Super Cassettes (T series), the producer of the film which ended in out of court settlement.

DELHI HC CJ TO HEAD TDSAT AFTER RETIREMENT

The Central government has cleared the appointment of Delhi High Court Chief Justice D N Patel to the post of Chairperson of the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for a period of four years.

Justice Patel retired from the post of Chief Justice of Delhi High Court on March 12.

DELHI HC ON JURISDICTION

The Delhi High Court has held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by an agreement if the court otherwise does not have such a jurisdiction.

Writing the verdict in Anchal Mittal and Ors Vs. Ankur Shukla, Justice Amit Bansal said that a jurisdiction cannot be vested on a court by agreement between the parties if there is no cause of action that arises in the territorial limits of that court.