Reference to order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages at establishments located within 500 meters of state and national highways, and included hotels, pubs and bars as well within its ambit, while allowing a partial modification reducing the limit to 220 meters in areas with a population of less than 20.000.
Some thoughts on above: :
Some thoughts on above: :
a 1. The said order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court court is based
on the premise, Drunk driving is a potent
cause of fatalities and injuries in road accidents. The Constitution preserves
and protects right to life as on over-arching constitutional value.
There can be no doubt about the validity of this
premise by the bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which delivered the said verdict
yesterday. But then, can drunk driving not emanate from the residential units
as well, situated along the prescribed limits off highways? Is there any
empirical evidence to support the contention that only the impacted bars, pubs,
and hotels located within such prescribed limits are responsible for drunk
driving?
Secondly, should the resident guests in the impacted
hotels, and guests in valet driven cars who visit such impacted bars, or pubs
etc not be permitted to consume liquor within such premises, as they do
not cause drunk driving?
b 2. To quote from page no. 8 of today’s Hindustan Times (New Delhi/Metro edition):
h
The fresh ruling virtually rejected Attorney General Rohtagi’s legal opinion to Kerala and Haryana, that the verdict was not meant for restaurants, bars, and hotels. “As the object of the direction is to prevent drunk driving, making any such relaxation will defeat its purpose”, the bench said.
h
The fresh ruling virtually rejected Attorney General Rohtagi’s legal opinion to Kerala and Haryana, that the verdict was not meant for restaurants, bars, and hotels. “As the object of the direction is to prevent drunk driving, making any such relaxation will defeat its purpose”, the bench said.
But then, can’t drunk driving emanate from other
bars, pubs, clubs, and hotels as well, which are off the prescribed limits, and
do not come with the ambit of such prescribed limits as defined in the said
judgement? Also, what about the residential units from where drunk driving can
emanate, irrespective of where those are located?
It needs to be noted that as the Attorney General is
the Chief Judicial Officer of the Union Government, his legal opinion to Kerala
and Haryana, should represent the views of the Union Government as well.
In case of a clash between the Judiciary and the
Executive, where interpretation of laws are concerned, the Executive can have
an upper hand by promulgating an ordinance, to set aside the ruling of the
Judiciary.
3 To quote from page no. 8 of today’s Hindustan Times (New Delhi/Metro edition):
The Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the order required rectification because the court had “transgressed its limitations” by interfering with the state’s right to prescribe distance. His argument, did not find favour with the court.
The Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi appearing for Tamil Nadu, argued that the order required rectification because the court had “transgressed its limitations” by interfering with the state’s right to prescribe distance. His argument, did not find favour with the court.
This implies that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has perhaps stepped
on the rights of the states where this particular ruling is concerned.
d 4. To quote from the front page of today’s Economic
Times (New Delhi/Gurgaon edition),
However, the bench did not relax the norm for hotels and restaurants, which risk losing their liquor licenses unless civic authorities re-designate highways as municipal roads.” As a parallel move, the state and the Union governments need to look afresh the existing highways, and evolve parameters to clearly define municipal roads and highways.
As a parallel move, the State and the Union governments need to look afresh the existing highways, and evolve parameters to clearly define municipal roads and highways.
However, the bench did not relax the norm for hotels and restaurants, which risk losing their liquor licenses unless civic authorities re-designate highways as municipal roads.” As a parallel move, the state and the Union governments need to look afresh the existing highways, and evolve parameters to clearly define municipal roads and highways.
As a parallel move, the State and the Union governments need to look afresh the existing highways, and evolve parameters to clearly define municipal roads and highways.
According
to Google:
A highway is a main road, or thoroughfare, such a street, boulevard, or parkway, available to the public for use for travel or transportation. The nature of public way is determinable from its origin, as well as the intention and plans of the appropriate authorities and the use to which it has been put. If a particular road or highway is designated as private, its character will not be altered if it is actually a public road or a highway.
Private roads are intended for use by a few private individuals,as distinguished from highways that are for public use.
The said definition of Highway, if applied in the current ruling, would imply
virtual prohibition in the country.
