‘DUI’ overdrive

It is getting contagious ~ this malaise of negating the “noble” by trying to enforce it through mechanisms not fully “thought through”. With the added danger of a needless sense of prestige that risks exacerbating rather than easing complexities that had been overlooked in the initial “orders”. Though many might be irked by the comparison, there is a degree of commonality to the fall-out of demonetisation and the apex court’s order restricting the sale and service of alcoholic beverages along highways.

Who dare quarrel with efforts to curb black money and reduce traffic mishaps resulting from drunken driving? Yet just as not all cash was dubious as was made out to be, there is a huge difference between having a drink and “driving under the influence” (DUI). And only over an extended period of time will it be possible to determine if either move had the desired effect. For it is only in the realm of the romantically-philosophical that the theory of short-term pain for long-term gain acquires relevance.

Worse is when a “moral dimension” is injected into the equation: the personnel behind the 8 November bombshell spoke of doing what governments had avoided for decades, a member of the bench of the apex court responded to a senior counsel’s query with “we don’t have to stop every ill before we stop one ill”. Is that not reflective of a mindset almost as worrisome as members of the infamous Anti-Romeo squads cracking down on courting couples?

A number of legal technicalities are likely to be raised if the moves for a review petition or a Presidential Reference materialise. It is contended that the sale of alcohol at vends is not to be clubbed with the serving of hard drinks at bars, marriage receptions, etc.
Then there is confusion over the point from which distance from highways is to be measured: is that the length of the road to be travelled or “as the crow flies”. Hotels have started using their rear gates to extend the distance, some states have opted to de-notify sections of the highway to “beat the ban”. Clearly the loss of excise revenue is hurting, and efficient governance does not include such fanciful thinking as arguing that social costs outweigh financial gains. Then there is the view that social maladies ~ like dowry ~ cannot be legislated or “policed” away. 

Many suggest that statistics do not point to drunken driving being responsible for a majority of traffic mishaps ~ or has the publicity triggered by the antics of a few rich brats with high-speed vehicles created a distorted picture? Has the judiciary encroached upon the legislature’s domain? Hopefully doubts will soon be resolved and there will be an end to this DUI overdrive.