[kovilkalai]

Originally Posted by binand

First of all, you should recognize that no country can have laws that cover every single conceivable situation. So in cases like this (where a legal lacuna exists) the court will frame laws on its own. Our constitution allows the supreme court to do this, and often the legislature also allows those laws to stay in place (and not replace them with parliamentary legislation). This has been a long-standing practice, and not just in India - but in all countries that follow the common law system.

Point taken! I did not understand how common law operates until I read your comment and followed it up with a little bit of reading. Perhaps, I should have complained about judicial overreach - a subjective critique that stands in the face of the free-for-all that is common law. I do use the phrase "free-for-all" a bit loosely, but having seen a few decisions by our high courts, I am inclined to believe that they have little respect for the precedent they are setting and operate under a massive power trip.

Under the common law model, I assume it is fair to expect that judges respect the fact that their decisions will linger into posterity. Therefore, conclusions can't be based on superficial statistics like the ones I sarcastically presented in my post. Placing restrictions on individual and commercial freedoms cannot be taken lightly. They have to be based on indisputable facts and sound logic. Legislatures aren't bound by this requirement. For instance, if our parliament finds the colour red offensive, they can ban it as long as it doesn't conflict with any tenet in our constitution. Judiciaries, on the other hand, can't do that without some serious evidence that the colour red is detrimental to society somehow.

Originally Posted by binand

Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you could actually try all these. The court obviously wouldn't read your petition and go "you know, that sounds like a good idea", but will follow a due process. In the present case, the petitioners managed to convince the court, with actual numbers, that a huge fraction of the road accidents and deaths have a DUI motif. The judgment quotes some of these numbers.

It is not enough to correlate accidents with DUIs. You have to prove that there is a significant correlation between bars on state and national highways and accidents that happen. The statistics used in the judgement actually support the forcible use of electronic speed regulators in automobiles than they do a ban on liquor shops along highways. The percent of accidents and fatalities where DUI is a factor is actually in the single digits. Overspeeding (unconditional) is 60+%. The judgement suggests that there is a tendency to under-report fatalities and accidents in DUI cases "in order not to impede the right of victims and/or their legal heirs to receive compensation". I read this a few times. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If a driver is drunk and an accident with serious consequences happens, I suspect that it will be recorded more accurately than otherwise (if the victim's rights are being considered) i.e. the opposite effect than the judgement suggests.

Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that DUI is a serious factor in accidents (something I do agree with BTW). How do you go from here to placing restrictions on liquor shops along highways? Remember, you are placing restrictions on the freedom of individuals here. Are you sure that a proportionately higher number of DUIs were generated by liquor consumed from shops along highways. There are no stats regarding this. Also, this restriction applies within city limits as well. This makes no sense. I live less than 300 metres from a state highway where the traffic hardly ever moves faster than 20 kmph (because it is in a densely populated area). There are side roads where the traffic moves faster. Why would you restrict the operation of liquor shops in these roads? What about shops located inside malls that are on major roads like this?

You may think that these "general" restrictions are for the greater good and exceptions like the ones I describe above shouldn't matter. This is where I default to the notion that a judge making sweeping rules should worry about the restriction of freedoms with superficial evidence. I would grumble if a legislature made the same move, but it isn't nearly as bad as the judiciary making it. I hope I was able to explain my gripe here.

[binand]

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

Perhaps, I should have complained about judicial overreach - a subjective critique that stands in the face of the free-for-all that is common law.

"Judicial Overreach" is usually used when the judiciary steps into the domain of the executive. In this case, they haven't done that and in fact, have clearly stopped short of doing that (the judges themselves mention it). In particular, the judges did not dictate policy. They looked at the existing policy - drafted by an executive body, the National Road Safety Council - and only framed the law needed for enforcing the policy.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

Placing restrictions on individual and commercial freedoms cannot be taken lightly.

True. But on the other hand, there is no individual right to consume alcohol in India, and neither is there a commercial right to trade in alcohol. On the contrary, the Constitution of India wants the state to strive for total prohibition.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

For instance, if our parliament finds the colour red offensive, they can ban it as long as it doesn't conflict with any tenet in our constitution. Judiciaries, on the other hand, can't do that without some serious evidence that the colour red is detrimental to society somehow.

:-) I don't think that is true though. The underlying principles & procedures of lawmaking are the same for all branches. If the parliament is considering banning red colour, it needs to have a select committee that consult external experts on the matter. If it is the executive, then expert advice is taken via advisory bodies and if it is the judiciary, then via an amicus curae. In all three branches, expert advice that deals in "indisputable facts and sound logic" is indeed consulted.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

It is not enough to correlate accidents with DUIs. You have to prove that there is a significant correlation between bars on state and national highways and accidents that happen.

That correlation unfortunately is not part of the judgment, but seems to be part of the policy that this judgment strives to enforce. The judgment only says this: "The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the considered view of the National Road Safety Council and MoRTH – expert authorities with domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways". My guess is that one of these things happened: (a) as part of the case proceedings the court asked MoRTH or NRSC for their opinion, and they filed an affidavit with this sort of data, or (b) one of the parties in the court submitted such an affidavit. I don't think we currently have a system by which one can download documents filed as part of a case; one needs to visit the court, pay the fees and get copies made.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

The judgement suggests that there is a tendency to under-report fatalities and accidents in DUI cases "in order not to impede the right of victims and/or their legal heirs to receive compensation". I read this a few times. This makes absolutely no sense to me. If a driver is drunk and an accident with serious consequences happens, I suspect that it will be recorded more accurately than otherwise (if the victim's rights are being considered) i.e. the opposite effect than the judgement suggests.

The thing is, insurance companies can wriggle out of paying compensation in accident cases if the driver is proven to have been DUI. This leads to situations where the victims receive no compensation at all, since if insurance doesn't pay, who will? Hence there is a tendency in India to cover up DUI cases from being reported as such.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

Also, this restriction applies within city limits as well. This makes no sense. I live less than 300 metres from a state highway where the traffic hardly ever moves faster than 20 kmph (because it is in a densely populated area). There are side roads where the traffic moves faster. Why would you restrict the operation of liquor shops in these roads? What about shops located inside malls that are on major roads like this?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. If anything, a densely populated area I'd say requires more controls in terms of DUI than a sparsely populated one. I don't see why shops located inside malls need any exception.

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

I hope I was able to explain my gripe here.

I think you shouldn't adjust the level of your grumbling based on who formed a law; given that the impact of any law is not determined by who framed it.

[sgiitk]

I support this regulation 200%. Driving and alcohol do not mix. Maybe this will wean away our 'knights of the road' from their love for Drink and Drive. This needs a change in attitude and mindset.

[kovilkalai]

Originally Posted by binand

"Judicial Overreach" is usually used when the judiciary steps into the domain of the executive. In this case, they haven't done that and in fact, have clearly stopped short of doing that (the judges themselves mention it). In particular, the judges did not dictate policy. They looked at the existing policy - drafted by an executive body, the National Road Safety Council - and only framed the law needed for enforcing the policy.

My point simply is if the government sponsored a study and the study came up with this draft policy, let the government issue the order. The court can suggest that the government expedite activities.

Originally Posted by binand

True. But on the other hand, there is no individual right to consume alcohol in India, and neither is there a commercial right to trade in alcohol. On the contrary, the Constitution of India wants the state to strive for total prohibition.

First... regarding the right. Freedom doesn't mean that what you are allowed to do has to be specifically listed out. For instance, I am free to walk backwards every time I choose to, but I am sure it isn't exactly listed in our constitution.

Second... Prohibition is a directive principle. However, as recent history suggests it isn't exactly well thought out and there is some cultural insensitivity in this rather sweeping decision. Alcohol consumption has been part of our culture for millenia. Assuming that the fathers of the constitution were smarter than every generation that came after them is quite silly. It is amazingly stupid that our constitution doesn't evolve with the times and we continue to aspire to goals set out 70 years back. The same debate exists in other countries (the USA most notably).

Originally Posted by binand

:-) I don't think that is true though. The underlying principles & procedures of lawmaking are the same for all branches. If the parliament is considering banning red colour, it needs to have a select committee that consult external experts on the matter. If it is the executive, then expert advice is taken via advisory bodies and if it is the judiciary, then via an amicus curae. In all three branches, expert advice that deals in "indisputable facts and sound logic" is indeed consulted.

Hmmm... So, we should research the outcomes of banning the red colour, but it is alright to ban the sale of alcohol on highways on a whim. I have read the judgement... I can't find any evidence that suggests that this is a good idea. This is simply our wonderful habit of banning stuff simply because we are too lazy to enforce existing laws.

Originally Posted by binand

That correlation unfortunately is not part of the judgment, but seems to be part of the policy that this judgment strives to enforce. The judgment only says this: "The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the considered view of the National Road Safety Council and MoRTH – expert authorities with domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways". My guess is that one of these things happened: (a) as part of the case proceedings the court asked MoRTH or NRSC for their opinion, and they filed an affidavit with this sort of data, or (b) one of the parties in the court submitted such an affidavit. I don't think we currently have a system by which one can download documents filed as part of a case; one needs to visit the court, pay the fees and get copies made.

In all the public data available, there is some research into alcohol consumption and accidents, but there is nothing about where the alcohol was sold.

Originally Posted by binand

The thing is, insurance companies can wriggle out of paying compensation in accident cases if the driver is proven to have been DUI. This leads to situations where the victims receive no compensation at all, since if insurance doesn't pay, who will? Hence there is a tendency in India to cover up DUI cases from being reported as such.

Hmm! I didn't know this. This is a dumb exception though. Since insurance is mandated by law, at least third party insurance should pay up (if not, comprehensive insurance). Nice gaping hole in our insurance regulation (see USA regulation in contrast... they will pay, but your rates will spike)

Originally Posted by binand

Not sure what you are trying to say here. If anything, a densely populated area I'd say requires more controls in terms of DUI than a sparsely populated one. I don't see why shops located inside malls need any exception.

Densely populated areas also have a denser network of state and national highways. If the logic behind the ban is that locating a liquor store 500m or more away from a highway makes it difficult from a driver to top up on alcohol, then a liquor store being located inside a mall does the same thing.

[binand]

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

My point simply is if the government sponsored a study and the study came up with this draft policy, let the government issue the order. The court can suggest that the government expedite activities.

The court cannot tell the government what laws to pass and what not to. That will not go down well.

For the rest, I am trying to obtain a copy of the original report/study.

Ref insurance: third-party is infinite liability in India. I was talking only of first-party. As a matter of fact the insurance companies are lobbying the government to cap their third-party liability as well (and are succeeding apparently).

I came back to this thread to post this link:

http://indianexpress.com/article/ind...rsion-4476970/

A WhatsApp joke about Kerala seems to be coming true in Maharashtra. :-)

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by ecenandu

What is the rationale behind the ban.

Is it to curb drunk driving or to reduce the accidents caused by drunkards near the road.

Rationale being that if you make it easy for people, they are more likely to take up the option

If its not easily available, a casual abuser of alcohol may not be motivated to put in effort to go seek it

A hardcore drinker or addict will still find a way to drink and drive but this move will reduce drunk driving by significant %

Originally Posted by Samurai

Is it just liquor shops or even bar/pubs along the national/state highways? Lot of restaurants serve liquor too, what about them?

In smaller towns, every restaurant/bar/pub/liquor-shop is located on either national or state highways. This has huge impact on state revenues too, which highly benefit from liquor sale. The annual liquor license renewal official price in KA is around 6-7L on average, over that big bribe has to be paid. Then there is the revenue from liquor sale.

IMO, this move is targeting truck drivers and they tend not to visit fancy restaurants. Liquor store offers them the best bang for the buck

Most truckers use the bypass in the interest of quick progress (their owners probably dictate that) and in small towns where there isn't one, I'm guessing the stores have to close down or relocate while keeping their license

Originally Posted by kovilkalai

Hmmm... So, we should research the outcomes of banning the red colour, but it is alright to ban the sale of alcohol on highways on a whim. I have read the judgement... I can't find any evidence that suggests that this is a good idea. This is simply our wonderful habit of banning stuff simply because we are too lazy to enforce existing laws.

In all the public data available, there is some research into alcohol consumption and accidents, but there is nothing about where the alcohol was sold

You are missing the spirit of the law
Pretty sure it wasn't done on a whim. In fact, there would've had be pressure from the liquor lobby to not go thru with this legislation
What they have not done a good job with... is to explain with some stats why this is necessary for our society

Truckers in India are faced with poor roads, crappy under-powered trucks and other issues like boredom/fatigue that drives them to liquor-up before hitting the road. This move to curb that practice

Is there going to be collateral damage...YES. When a highway cuts thru a densely populated area with liquor stores frequented by locals who walk home after booze shopping will be affected and have to now walk 500m extra lol....but the focus on liquor shops in the middle of the highway where truckers stop for a break. Who's buying booze from these shops? Not the locals for sure

Originally Posted by drmohitg

Another case of good intention but total helplessness when it comes to enforcing the same as the cops would be on the payroll of most of these shops. Even in a relatively well policed city/state like Vadodara/Gujarat, where liquor is banned for sale unless you have a permit, one can very easily buy it via multiple vendors who provide you doorstep service. I do not see how they will enforce it on the highways. Lets hope they can.

Like any law, there will be loopholes and lawbreakers and it depends on the enforcement and attitude of citizens, cops and truckers

Regardless, its a great move

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Rationale being that if you make it easy for people, they are more likely to take up the option

If its not easily available, a casual abuser of alcohol may not be motivated to put in effort to go seek it

A hardcore drinker or addict will still find a way to drink and drive but this move will reduce drunk driving by significant %


IMO, this move is targeting truck drivers and they tend not to visit fancy restaurants. Liquor store is the best bang for the buck.

I think you contradict yourself here. Truckers are not casual drinkers, may be a very small percentage of them may fall in this group. But for others specially the targeted group of this exercise I feel, alcohol is the way of life and are habitual drinkers like most of our lower income strata workforce. They will find a way to keep a bottle or two with them whenever needed.

On a side note, on my recent new years trip to Udaipur, I was surprised to see a fairly upmarket, lake side open air view restaurant there serve alcohol illegally outside the menu and the charges for the same in the bill were marked as just starter. If a high profile place can do so blatantly then what is stopping the hundreds of road side dhabas to keep stock illegally.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

If a high profile place can do so blatantly then what is stopping the hundreds of road side dhabas to keep stock illegally.

You are right, this is going to result in massive illegal sales along the highway. Sure, they will rebuild the legal stores away from the highways, but tea-shops and dhabas along the highway will keep hidden stock and will sell to regulars.

Meanwhile, all the state governments are not sitting idle. They are not about to give up their main source of income. They are all silently preparing a legal case and will apply for a stay just before April.

If all licenses get cancelled on April, the state governments will have to return the licensing fee for the remaining period. That alone will drive many state government into bankruptcy.

[binand]

Originally Posted by Samurai

If all licenses get cancelled on April, the state governments will have to return the licensing fee for the remaining period.

I believe licenses are issued for one year at a time, from April to March. Probably varies from state to state, though.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by Samurai

You are right, this is going to result in massive illegal sales along the highway. Sure, they will rebuild the legal stores away from the highways, but tea-shops and dhabas along the highway will keep hidden stock and will sell to regulars.

Meanwhile, all the state governments are not sitting idle. They are not about to give up their main source of income. They are all silently preparing a legal case and will apply for a stay just before April.

If all licenses get cancelled on April, the state governments will have to return the licensing fee for the remaining period. That alone will drive many state government into bankruptcy.

Illegal sales of legal liquor and moonshine sale (along-with deaths due to methyl alcohol) shall rise. There's no doubt about this.

Also - regarding state governments not sitting idle - West Bengal govt has stated that they shall set up a board which shall act as a 'super distributor'. The board/nigam/whatever you call it shall be the sole licensed authority to buy from manufacturers and sell to distributors, thus controlling the price in the state and while earning revenue from the same.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-...Uk4ylnjRM.html

and increasing revenue from liquor in Bengal is the subject of case studies too !!

http://blogs.economictimes.indiatime...-liquor-story/

[Mpower]

I'm a little concerned and quite frankly appalled at the number of you that are arguing against the move. Can I ask, how your highway-drive/road-trip is inconvenienced by this?

I sincerely hope that you are not customers of the highway liquor shops while on a road trip

Originally Posted by drmohitg

I think you contradict yourself here. Truckers are not casual drinkers, may be a very small percentage of them may fall in this group. But for others specially the targeted group of this exercise I feel, alcohol is the way of life and are habitual drinkers like most of our lower income strata workforce. They will find a way to keep a bottle or two with them whenever needed

Don't see how I am, having clearly recognized in my post that the hardcore drinkers will find some way to stock up. I don’t think either of us have stats to state with confidence what percentage is hardcore vs casual, so it’s my gut feeling vs yours

Of more significance is long term effect! There are 1000s of young new truckers starting their careers and a move like this will prevent them from picking up the habit. This will ensure that the next generation of truckers will make highways safe for our children and theirs

It’s similar to what has been happening in the cigarette industry. In order to discourage smoking we have seen mounting taxes, banning on TV ads, then print ads, sponsorship of events, blackening of cigarette cartons with large warning label saying ‘CIGERETTES CAN KILL’

This has led to the current generation of youngsters more or less completely rejecting the habit because it has lost its glamour quotient

Although despite this, the older hardcore smokers and addicts still light up. So, are you saying that these are a waste of time?

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Can I ask, how your highway-drive/road-trip is inconvenienced by this?

I was driving with my wife and a friend+his family to a nearby beach town.
Forgot the booze that I picked up last night at my home.
Picked up some on the way from a highway shop to be consumed that night at the hotel.

Originally Posted by Mpower

I sincerely hope that you are not customers of the highway liquor shops while on a road trip

Being a customer does not mean instant / next hour consumer.
Many people I know in WB pick up liquor from Sikkim as it is cheaper there and being it back to be consumed at a later date.
Please do not paint everyone with the same wide 'drunkard' brush.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by Mpower

I'm a little concerned and quite frankly appalled at the number of you that are arguing against the move. Can I ask, how your highway-drive/road-trip is inconvenienced by this?

What doesn't cause inconvenience directly to us isn't necessarily right. The idea of curbing drunken driving on our roads is a noble cause but implementation of the same by doing this probably is like fighting a lion with a stick perhaps.

I am quoting another member's post from page 1 who has worded his post very well in trying to explain the problems with this policy.

OK. Possibly I am alone who is not much impressed with this move. (Read only as "impressed" and do not construe that I "oppose", it in any manner). I am not a vivid supporter of “Ban this, Ban that”, politics that is in vogue.

Selling liquor at highway side does not necessarily mean that it is the sole cause of drunken driving on highways. Firstly, our truck drivers who close their drive after 1:00 a.m and take rest at highway dhabas need that "dose" for better rejuvenation. So disallowing the “Drinks” at such dhabas mean one is depriving the drivers of their basic right. They will eventually end up in buying the same drink by “Other” means. This would only facilitate backend trade of liquor, followed by cops placing barricades every now and then to check alcohol and fleece money from motorists for some or the other hideous reason and nothing else. Simple eg. Alcohol / Non veg is banned in Gujarat; does it mean no one in Gujarat actually drinks alcohol or consumes non veg.
The above ban theory also does not even explain as how it prevents people from purchasing liquor off the highway and storing them in the vehicle in advance and using it later as per convenience. So the whole exercise is futile.

[AJ-got-BHP]

Definitely a Good Move irrespective of Casual or Habitual Consumers

The question is what do we achieve with this rule coming into force ? A liquor free highway or abolishing the chances of Drink & Drive ? In a place like India, people who want to, do find their way out. There is a Pro & a Con to it IMHO.

The Pros :

• The highway will become a better place as it will filter the 'to be influenced' crowd into the alleys
• Lesser unwanted traffic on the highways
• This rule will restrict people who do short highway drives to highway motels/ dhabas for meals and 'funtimes'
• Lesser truck parking on the highways which lay-bye for refreshments so lesser clogs and a clearer highway

The Cons :

• The opportunist 'Line Dhaba Wala' shall earn a quick buck by selling the forbidden ale at a higher price to the people demanding it. Result - generation of Black Money yet once again
• The genuine consumer (I repeat irrespective of casual or habitual) shall have to go 500 Meters off the Highway to source alcohol and shall have to have the knowledge of the exact place where it will be available. Result - Gives ample opportunity to the mischievous locals to play prank
• As someone said that truckers need that dose to rejuvenate themselves for the drive ahead; this will disallow them to park the trucks at Truck Lay-Byes on the highway and venture 500 Meters off the highway on foot by leaving the loaded truck unattended. Well, some addicted one might do that. Result - More responsibility on Transport Companies and higher risk for Insurance Companies

Considering the above facts, it is to be understood that the Dhabas (on the Highway) will be substantially isolated with this rule coming into force, one will have to be very cautious of stopping on the highways. Standing in isolated patches is not advisable.

Now w.r.t. the question that I raised in the first line of my post :

The question is what do we achieve with this rule coming into force ? A liquor free highway or abolishing the chances of Drink & Drive ?

According to me, there should be vigilance at the Toll Booths to check/ identify drivers who are Driving Under Influence of alcohol. Suspects should be examined and their driving licence should be seized immediately and sent to the respective court. Monetary penalty will not help completely.

Moreover, Highway Patrol Police to impromptu raid the highway dhabas to check whether liquor is being sold by them in black or not. Even the cops will have to pull their socks up for the rule to be implemented successfully. They will have to forget about the "Hafta Wasooli" from such outlets and be stringent in their actions.

Jai Hind !!

[Mpower]

Let me give you a relatable personal example. I used to have one cup of coffee in the morning and that was it. After I joined my current job couple years ago, my desk was 10 cubiciles away from a coffee machine and we have a coffee club which ends up costing me very little for a cup. Since then I am averaging 4 cups. Every time I walk by and someone makes a fresh pot, the aroma just draws me and I pour myself another cup. When I travel to other work locations, I still need my 1 cup but don’t have cravings or withdrawal symptoms beyond that which would make me go seek coffee. I think this example is self-explanatory about how human behavior works

Originally Posted by blackasta

I was driving with my wife and a friend+his family to a nearby beach town.
Forgot the booze that I picked up last night at my home.
Picked up some on the way from a highway shop to be consumed that night at the hotel.

Being a customer does not mean instant / next hour consumer.
Many people I know in WB pick up liquor from Sikkim as it is cheaper there and being it back to be consumed at a later date.
Please do not paint everyone with the same wide 'drunkard' brush.

Yes, like I mentioned already…. there will be collateral damage but it’s for a greater good.

I like to enjoy 2 cigarettes a month and its perfectly safe for my health, but because others are getting addicted and ruining their health and dying of cancer and turned it into a social problem, I have to pay triple the price for added taxes and experience all the harsh measures that have been imposed on the industry. Its just collateral damage