Open to suggestions on liquor vends’ ban: SC

New Delhi : Noting that it had an open mind towards modifying its December 15 order banning liquor vends within 500 m of state and national highways across the country from April 1, 2017, the Supreme Court today asked states to suggest a way out to balance conflicting rights involved in the matter.
“We are not going to be an impediment in your (states’) revenue… But suggest us some measures,” a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar told Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and several senior advocates representing various states. “We will not shut you out. We will hear you tomorrow also. We are giving ourselves some time. We need to take a conscious decision. We want to ponder if we should do it and how to go about it etc.” the Bench, also comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice L Nageshwar Rao, said. Expressing concern over large number of accidental deaths on roads, it said such accidents were generally under-reported. “If the bread earner of a family goes, it’s a disaster for the family,” the CJI said.The Attorney General said the court could not have passed such a blanket order in derogation to statutory provisions governing liquor and excise policy in various states. He suggested the order should be deferred for a month and all parties heard in detail before the order was modified. “Article 142 can’t be used to supplant laws,” Rohatgi told the Bench. He was supported by senior advocates KK Venugopal Rajiv Dhavan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Harish Salve, RS Suri and many other advocates who tried to impress upon the Bench to defer the implementation of the order for a month or two for a detailed hearing as the December 15, 2016, order was not supported by any study and empirical data. The counsel representing Punjab,HP, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal and others sought to highlight it was adversely affecting states’ revenue and many people would be rendered unemployed. “Rest assured we do not want to be any impediment in your earning revenue. But drunken driving…a person dying is dead and gone. Imagine about his family. We are not against revenue earning by you. But suggest some alternative. We want to balance it,” the Bench said.