On Monday, the public interest litigation was filed before the Supreme court for a direction to the government to pass a policy for the prevention of alcohol.
The petitioner contended that some states prohibited liquor in their states while others, taking this as an opportunity, increased the sale of liquor in their states. Petitioner submitted reports of government in court written on the impact of alcohol on society. He told the court that a small section of our country is suffering from addiction to alcohol.
The centre has power under the concurrent list to make law on the subject still centre had not made any policy on the prevention of alcohol or to control its regulation in the states. The matter is still untouched by the central government.
CJI was not convinced by the arguments of the petitioner and stated that to make law or not on the matter given in the concurrent list is under the discretion of the central government. In most of the states, they have their separate legislation to regulate the matter and therefore union agencies are not intervening in the matter of alcohol regulation or distribution in the state.
The petitioner contended before the apex court that to leave the matter completely at the mercy of states and not to formulate any policy to regulate the matter is not correct on the part of states.
The court observed that this is not a matter of social reform only; it’s also about the revenue of states. Some states are completely dependent on their revenue from alcohol.
The court said this is within the discretion of the union to formulate the law on the prevention of alcohol or not. And rejected the PIL filed before the court.