New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested a series of measures for all states and Union Territories (UTs) to prevent hooch tragedies, including stricter monitoring of methanol procurement, storage and transportation, periodic scrutiny of licences and permits, and specialised disaster-management systems for dealing with mass casualties.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran made the suggestions while striking down Maharashtra’s rules mandating the addition of bitterant and colourant to methanol sold to non-drug manufacturers, saying that the provisions violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The apex court said that recent hooch tragedies in Gujarat’s Bhavnagar and Madhya Pradesh’s Sagar, which claimed around 13 and 15 lives respectively, were a reminder for authorities to act.
It added that preventing hooch tragedies required a coordinated effort involving multiple government departments rather than measures focused only on identification of methanol.
“There is a need to break the chain of supply and demand of liquor by strict implementation of the State Prohibition Law, if any,” the Supreme Court said, calling for a multipronged approach involving the Prohibition, Excise, Police, Transport, Industries, Health and Social Justice departments, along with NGOs.
The Justice Pardiwala-led bench suggested strict monitoring of state borders, including checking squads to examine private vehicles, to prevent illegal transportation of liquor.
It also called for examination of how large quantities of liquor enter cities and stressed implementation of laws governing procurement, manufacture, transportation, sale and consumption.
The apex court also suggested that police, in coordination with prohibition and excise authorities, identify illegal breweries, particularly those operating in semi-industrial and congested urban areas.
It said that open land in municipal school premises was sometimes used for storing illegal liquor and suggested that the Education Department keep a check on such premises and report any such storage to the jurisdictional police.
Turning specifically to the role of industrial units, the top court said chemical solvents used in manufacturing spurious liquor were generally procured illegally from industrial units.
“Therefore, monitoring of industrial units by the Department of Industries would be useful to find out which industrial units are manufacturing such chemical solvents and selling them illegally to liquor makers,” it said.
The Justice Pardiwala-led bench also recommended a comprehensive review of state rules governing methanol, including a provision that vehicles used for transporting liquor should not be released on bond or surety in case of a rule violation until orders of the court.
It called for a “comprehensive re-look” at the licensing and permit regime, saying licences should not be granted as a matter of course and should follow verification of the applicant’s antecedents, credentials and genuine requirement.
The Supreme Court also suggested periodic scrutiny of existing licences and permits to verify continued eligibility, actual usage and compliance, so that licensing becomes an exercise involving “ongoing accountability” rather than a one-time process.
On methanol stocks, the apex court suggested that industrial consumers should periodically return unused or excess methanol to the seller or a designated authority within a specified period to prevent stockpiling and reduce the possibility of pilferage or diversion.
It further recommended mandatory records of methanol consumption and closing stock by every licensee and permit-holder, with periodic reconciliation so that any unexplained shortfall could be flagged and investigated promptly.
The top court said that anyone found violating the conditions of a licence or permit should face suspension or cancellation and should also be debarred from obtaining a fresh licence or permit.
The Supreme Court also called for a comprehensive policy and specialised cell under the State Health and Family Welfare Department to handle liquor tragedies.
“Experiences of the past show that these hospitals are hardly equipped with the necessary specialised medicines or equipment required to handle such emergencies,” the apex court said, stressing the need for a comprehensive disaster-management system for large-scale casualties.
The Justice Pardiwala-led bench also suggested increasing the number of de-addiction centres and fully operationalising existing ones, with such centres additionally reaching out to families affected by liquor consumption.
It recommended family counselling centres in every local area, particularly for families dealing with the consequences of liquor consumption.
The apex court also called for awareness campaigns by state governments and NGOs and stressed the importance of public cooperation in informing law-enforcement agencies about violations of laws regulating alcohol and prohibition.
The Justice Pardiwala-led bench said the Parthasarthy Committee report, prepared after the 1991 Chhaya Bar hooch tragedy in Mumbai in which around 93 people died, should be considered by the authorities “at the earliest” and its recommendations implemented “effectively and meaningfully”.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions challenging Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which required purchasers of methanol to hold a licence in Form A, mandated the addition of denaturants before sale to non-drug manufacturers, and provided for confiscation of methanol found without a valid licence.
The Supreme Court held that the measures failed the test of proportionality, saying that less restrictive safeguards already existed under the Maharashtra Poisons Rules and that effective implementation of those safeguards could better address pilferage and diversion.
“We do not discredit the intention behind the introduction of the impugned rules,” the Justice Pardiwala-led bench said, while adding that the state government’s intention to identify methanol did not by itself satisfy the constitutional test.
The top court concluded that the impugned rules were “manifestly arbitrary” and lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Concluding the judgment, the Justice Pardiwala-led bench said that although courts could issue directions in matters of this nature, “it is the police machinery that should rise to the occasion” and ensure strict and effective implementation of laws governing alcohol regulation.
The apex court registry was directed to forward copies of the judgment to all High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of the respective states.
(IANS)
