Liquor ban is overreach by Bihar government -Governance Now

Liquor ban is overreach by Bihar government

Sixteen deaths, reportedly caused by consumption of spurious liquor, have triggered a debate over the controversial liquor ban in Bihar.

Amol Parth | August 19, 2016 | New Delhi

#deaths #liquor ban #Bihar #Nitish Kumar

Since we ‘made our tryst with destiny’ and woke up “to life and freedom”, in every aspect of our lives, we have been trying to move towards a comparatively more open and liberal society, which gives people more and better choices. Lack of freedom to choose one’s basic eating and drinking habit is contradictory to this pursuit of a liberal society.

The April 1 liquor ban in Bihar and the ones existing in Gujarat, Nagaland and parts of Manipur are about limiting people’s choices and a question on their ability to make good decisions for themselves.

During framing of the Constitution, the Article 47, governing liquor ban, was included in the Directives Principles of State Policy, but most of the states eventually removed the ban on liquor owing to loss in Excise revenue, electoral loss, smuggling of liquor, deaths due to spurious liquor, bootlegging and loss of jobs.

Going back on this is politically convenient for Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, whose rising popularity among women voters is crucial for his national ambitions.

Reports suggest that the women are happy with the ban.

Some claim that the number of accidents and crimes has come down. As if the crimes and accidents across the world happen primarily because of the drinking habits of the people. Isn’t this more about the government’s failure in implementing the rule of law, which prohibits drunk driving?

The efforts that the government is putting in framing and implementation of draconian liquor prohibition laws; had it been directed towards better law and order enforcement, the dawn of Jungle Raj 2.0 could have been avoided.

But, can the government interfere in people’s eating and drinking habits?

Let’s understand why we need government. As an individual, we can take decisions for ourselves on various aspects of our life, but as a society and a nation, there are issues which are of common interest to all of us, for example, foreign policy and national security. On these issues of common interest where one person cannot decide for all of us, we need a process for collective decision-making. Hence, we choose the government.

Drinking in public, drinking and driving, creating nuisance after drinking are issues of common interest, hence the government should and must interfere. But absolute ban on drinking per se is an overreach by the government.

Comments

Other News

Former president Ram Nath Kovind on some of his unforgettable journeys

Triumph of the Indian Republic: My Life, My Struggles By Ram Nath Kovind Rupa Publications, 400 pages, Rs 795 All our presidents so far stand out, each for a different reason. Ram Nath Kovind, the 14th president of India, from 2017 t

Uday Kotak on history, Indian economy, growth and more

Pathbreakers: How 10 Visionary Leaders Transformed India by award-winning journalists By Sucheta Dalal and Debashis Basu Rupa Publications, 304 pages, Rs 695

₹5,000 crore saved from suspected financial fraud

In a significant gain for citizen protection in the digital economy, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has helped prevent suspected cyber fraud losses of more than ₹5,000 crore through its Financial Fraud Risk Indicator (FRI) within fifteen months of its launch on May 22, 2025. This money did

Capital acquisition proposals worth Rs 1.10 lakh crore for defence forces cleared

The Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), under the chairmanship of Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh, on Monday accorded Acceptance of Necessity (AoN), that is, in-principle administrative approval to various acquisition proposals of the defence forces at an estimated cost of about Rs 1,10,000 crore.

How Rafi, Raj Kapoor helped pave the way for a great uranium deal

There`s a certain moment in diplomacy that`s too personal to be captured in a communiqué, too small to make the front page, but more revealing than the front page. This week, prime minister Narendra Modi reached Tashkent and, amid the pomp of state visits, managed to evoke the old Bollywood tunes

Distinguishing Fish 1 and Fish 2: The pragmatism behind India’s WTO ratification

India became the 123rd WTO member to ratify the multilateral Agreement on Fisheries subsidies (AoFS) when it deposited the Instrument of Acceptance for Phase 1 on July 20, 2026. The ratification is restricted to disciplining Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU), protection for overfished