As a fauji wife, my social interactions typically include a congenial atmosphere of free-flowing booze and people drinking; mostly responsibly. However, as a child, my earliest memories of alcohol consumption were of Gujarat: shrouded in clandestine secrecy, curtains drawn, bottles appearing surreptitiously. This breaking of the law by my father – a fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizen in all other respects – was unusual. This uncharacteristic behaviour of my father and that of millions of other Gujaratis over the years continues to raise many questions about alcohol prohibition in the state. For many citizens of Gujarat and several Ahmedabad-based lawyers of the Gujarat High Court, alcohol prohibition is seen as both pointless and problematic.
You know how for the longest time, the Hindi film vamp was the woman who drank alcohol? That has changed now; ‘good’ girls may also be seen to knock back a few. However, our mindsets haven’t altered significantly when it comes to drinking. When alcohol shops were permitted to open after one of the phases of the coronavirus lockdown, there was outrage that booze was considered a necessity, or that this revenue source for states was privileged over ‘public interest’. In other words, drinking alcohol is seen not only as dispensable and preferably avoidable but as somehow shameful and/or sinful. Abstaining, apparently, is virtuous. I would venture to say that drinking responsibly is what is virtuous; citizens must have a choice in the matter.
Gujarati citizens, however, do not have that choice. Since independence, Gujarat is the only Indian state that has continuously had alcohol prohibition in place. It is a fact that bootlegged alcohol is available without much effort. Illegal hooch claims lives and makes headlines with monotonous regularity. Citizens of Gujarat are granted alcohol permits on ‘medical grounds’ which are widely availed of by those who can afford the effort/expenditure involved in their obtainment. All this points to the fact that the Gujarati is not averse to drinking alcohol. In fact, if the conduct of Gujarati visitors to Mt Abu, Daman and Diu is any indication, the very opposite is true.
It is no coincidence that there is significant opposition to the prohibition policy; that this petition on change.org (screengrab) calling for a change in the alcohol law has nearly 70,000 signatories.
Currently, the purchase, sale, possession and drinking of alcohol are illegal in Gujarat. This is considered so heinous a crime, that it attracts stiff penalties including a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakh and jail time of up to 10 years. At the same time, it is widely known that there is a thriving bootleg industry that illegally supplies alcohol in Gujarat.
Studies have repeatedly shown that prohibition does not have the supposed salutary effect of reducing crime or curbing the ill effects of alcohol consumption. In fact, prohibition as a policy is seen to enable the bootleg mafia, create a mutually beneficial criminal-politician nexus and encourage the production of spurious liquor which claims lives each year.
So clearly, Gujaratis are enjoying their tipple, but without the benefit that could accrue to the state exchequer or benefit to the tourism industry if alcohol sale and consumption were made legal. So, does prohibition make any sense in Gujarat? Not really. Does it reflect a puritanical mindset and just rank hypocrisy? It seems to.
My brother Percy Kavina, Senior Advocate (Gujarat High Court) told me about a matter he had appeared for; one of several challenging the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Accessing the publicly available records on the High Court website we find that there are as many as 6 matters challenging prohibition pending before the Gujarat High Court. SCA (Special Civil Applications) have been filed on behalf of Rajiv Piyush Patel, Peter Jagdish Nazareth, Nagendrasingh Mahendra Rathore, Garima Dhirendra Bhatt & others against the State of Gujarat & others. Additionally, there is a Writ Petition (PIL) filed by Mukeshbhai Kashirambhai Patel against certain state authorities/office bearers. These matters are clubbed together and common orders are passed for these by the judges.
This is a subject close to my heart since, as a citizen, I strongly oppose prohibition and other such curbs upon the freedoms, choices and the privacy of citizens. It is not only our right but our duty to defend to try and restore the precious liberties that the constitution grants us. Other lawyers of my acquaintance have also been involved in the various ongoing litigations. So, clearly this is a movement that is picking up steam in what the rest of India euphemistically refers to as a ‘dry’ state.
The matters before the Gujarat HC challenge the prohibition law as being arbitrary and violative of certain fundamental rights under The Constitution of India. A common order dated 22 February 2019 was passed by acting CJ Anant S Dave and Justice Biren Vaishnav in these matters, whereby notice was issued to the state of Gujarat to respond. The state responded with all the reasons why they felt the prohibition as state policy should continue. The matter was slated for hearing this March 2020; but apparently the COVID-19 pandemic makes the decisions for us all these days. The matters will now be taken up when the courts resume regular functioning.
In addition to the legal aspects of the matter, there are social and political implications of any change in the Gujarat Prohibition Act that is currently under challenge. The sequence of events in the High Court, the adjournments granted (and the often flimsy grounds on which they are granted) seem to indicate that the Respondents (State of Gujarat and others) may not exactly be in a tearing hurry to have the matter heard finally. It remains to be seen when the court will demonstrate the requisite alacrity to strike down or even significantly alter the law as it stands – if at all.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
