Patna High Court (schematic image)
The Patna High Court also issued sharp comments on the challenge raised by Bihar’s liquor ban. The high court said officials liked Prohibition and it meant big money to them. Meanwhile, the High Court also quashed the demotion order issued to a police inspector for negligence in enforcing prohibition laws. The court said the rules would be useful for police who work closely with smugglers.
Justice Purnendu Singh, in his judgment delivered on October 29, said not only the police, tax officials but also officials of the commercial tax department and transport department were also leaning towards prohibition. To them, it means big money. In fact, Prohibition facilitated the unauthorized trade of alcohol and other prohibited items. These strict regulations have become a convenient tool for police to work closely with smugglers.
Judgment on writ application
The high court order came in response to a writ petition filed by Mukesh Kumar Paswan, SHO of Patna Bypass police station. Paswan was suspended after tax department officials seized foreign liquor during a raid. Despite defending himself during the investigation and claiming innocence, the state government issued a demotion order against Paswan on November 24, 2020.
In April 2016, the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar banned the sale and consumption of liquor across the state. After the prohibition, the Nitish Kumar government was criticized several times, but the prohibition continued. Even today, opposition parties challenge the ban and have no hesitation in calling it a source of revenue for the police.
‘A large number of cases were registered against the poor’
The court said there were few cases against liquor smuggling kingpins or syndicate operators, while there were many cases against drinkers or poor people who fell victim to liquor tragedies. Broadly speaking, the state’s poor will bear the brunt of the bill’s impact.
This law finds itself on wrong side: HC
The high court said that the government enacted the Bihar Prohibition Act, 2016 with the aim of improving the living standards of the people and improving public health as a whole, but it (the law’s history) found itself wrong due to multiple reasons. The court said those facing the wrath of the bill are daily wage earners and the only earning members of their families.
