That “honest” section of society that does not feel diffident about raising a glass in celebration will regret that while action in the apex court has dominated the news space in recent days, they were deprived of the opportunity to “toast” their Lordships because a major clarification from them went little-noticed on the court’s website for over a month.
So they will say only two, not three, cheers after being informed that bars within municipal limits are not covered in the courtdirected prohibition on the sale and service of alcohol within 500 metres of highways. The clarification had actually been issued on 11 July by a Bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar, and Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageshwara Rao.
It would serve to render unnecessary a series of attempts in several parts of the country to “beat the ban” which had thrown the hospitality trade into a tizzy since local authorities enforced it even on notified highways that run through urban areas. Several bars had been shut down, business disrupted, thousands of jobs lost.
And many hotels had opened new entrances to their premises and re-designed their lay-out so that bars were “relocated” beyond 500 metres from a highway. Certain states had appealed against the ban order issued on 16 December, others had de-notified highways, or parts of them (that ran through towns), to escape the “no booze” directive.
The ban, it must be emphasised, had been ordered in a welcome bid to reduce drunken driving that has, allegedly, been responsible for many fatal accidents on highways. The clarification was self-explanatory.
“The purpose of the directions contained in the order dated December 15, 2016 is to deal with the sale of liquor along and in proximity of highways properly understood, which provide connectivity between cities, towns and villages. The order does not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. This clarification shall govern other municipal areas as well. We have considered it appropriate to issue this clarification to set at rest any ambiguity and to obviate repeated recourse to IAs (interlocutory applications) before the court”.
In effect that clarification has rendered irrelevant litigation pending in several High Courts. Several state governments are understood to have asked officials to study the latest order and set about restoring licences to serve liquor in hotels and bars.
Even as “tipplers” welcomed the clarification they regretted it had come only when the NGO that sparked the move behind the order in December had sought to nullify efforts in Punjab to beat the ban, which the court did not favour.
Had their Lordships been as pro-active as they have been in other spheres, insist those with a palate for the “good stuff”, they would have hailed the clarification with a “Patiala”.