Alcohol Consumption and Prohibition in India

Alcohol Consumption and Prohibition in India

Context:

The States of Delhi, Karnataka, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Goa, and Kerala are or were mulling plans to allow the doorstep delivery of alcohol through platforms like Swiggy, BigBasket, and Zomato.

State of Alcohol Consumption in India & World:

• India’s alcohol consumption has risen significantly, with per capita use increasing from 1.6 litres in 2003-2005 to 5.5 litres in 2016-2018. 
• The country is the sixth-largest alcohol market globally, generating $52 billion in revenue.
• In 2019, there were about 16 crore alcohol users aged 10-75, with 5.7 crore facing social problems due to frequent consumption and 2.9 crore requiring therapeutic intervention. 
• Alcohol use causes approximately 3 lakh deaths annually, and the medically recommended safe limit is zero millilitres.

Argument for Doorstep Delivery:

• Revenue Generation: Excise taxes on alcohol sales can provide substantial revenue for state and central governments, which can be used for public welfare.
• Reducing Drunk-Driving: Delivery might decrease drunk-driving incidents and related traffic accidents.
• Safety for Women: In some cases, like Kerala, reducing on-premise alcohol sales has reduced violence against women. Doorstep delivery might offer similar benefits.

Arguments Against Doorstep Delivery:

• Economic Costs: The social and health costs of alcohol use outweigh the economic benefits from sales. Alcohol-related issues may lead to financial losses far exceeding tax revenue.

• Treatment and productivity losses from alcohol-related issues are projected to cost India over Rs 121.3 lakh crore between 2011 and 2050, whereas tax revenue will be significantly less.

• Increased Consumption Risks: On-demand availability could lead to increased alcohol consumption, binge drinking, and related harms.

• Alcohol is linked to various cancers, mental illnesses, and physical health issues, including liver and cardiovascular diseases.

• Ineffectiveness in Reducing Drunk-Driving: Evidence on doorstep delivery reducing drunk-driving is inconclusive. Other measures like sobriety checkpoints and public transport options might be more effective.

Alcohol Prohibition in India:

• Article 47 of the Indian Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy mandates that the State should work towards prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs harmful to health, except for medicinal purposes.
• Mahatma Gandhi and many Indian women were key advocates for national prohibition in India.
• Alcohol Prohibition Laws in India:Entry 51 in the State List of the Indian Constitution grants states the authority to regulate and tax alcoholic liquors for human consumption.
• Currently, full bans on alcohol are in place in Gujarat, Bihar, Nagaland, and Mizoram.
• Partial bans are enforced in Lakshadweep and Manipur.

Impact of Alcohol Prohibition in India:

Pros:

• In Bihar the Social Effects were that Murders and gang robberies fell by 20%, Riots decreased by 13% and Traffic accidents dropped by 10%.

• Economic Effects:Increased household spending: milk (10%), cheese (200%), two-wheeled vehicles (30%), and electrical appliances (50%). Improved housing with more brick houses replacing cottages.

• Positive Impact of Liquor Ban in Gujarat:

• Reduction in Alcohol Consumption: The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) reported a drop in alcohol consumption among men in Gujarat from 35% in 2005 to 22% in 2015.
• Decrease in Crime Rates: The Gujarat State Crime Records Bureau recorded a 15% decline in alcohol-related crimes, including domestic violence and public disorder, from 2009 to 2015.
• Improved Public Health: A study in the Indian Journal of Medical Research found a 20% reduction in hospital admissions for alcohol-related liver diseases and injuries in Gujarat from 2008 to 2015.

Cons:

• Black Market Growth:Prohibition frequently fuels the growth of a black market for alcohol, leading to organised crime and the distribution of unsafe, spurious liquor.
• Judicial Burden:Prohibition laws often increase the judicial burden, with cases related to liquor bans straining the court system, as seen in Bihar.
• Disproportionate Impact on Poorer Sections as wealthier individuals can still access expensive and safer alcohol.
• Burden to state Exchequer : Since the implementation of alcohol prohibition in Bihar in April 2016, the state has reportedly lost around ₹40,000 crore in revenue. 
• In the financial year 2015-16, Bihar earned approximately ₹3,141.7 crore from state excise duties on alcohol, which accounted for over 14% of its total tax revenues. 

Supreme Court on Alcohol Prohibition:

In Arrive Safe v. Union of India 2016 The Supreme Court of India implemented a ban on the sale of liquor within 500 metres of national and state highways to combat drunk driving and enhance public safety.  The court mandated the removal of all liquor vends within the specified distance, emphasising the need for safety on highways.  Subsequent clarifications allowed for exceptions in municipal areas, permitting licensed establishments to operate as long as they are beyond the specified distance from highways.

• In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, prohibiting liquor for consumption but deemed the Act unconstitutional regarding its restriction on liquor for toilet and medicinal uses. The Court affirmed that while the right to consume liquor is not a fundamental right, the state has authority to regulate and prohibit liquor for public health reasons.
• In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right, encompassing personal choices like alcohol consumption. 

• The Court emphasised that while the state can impose reasonable restrictions, a complete ban on consumption in private spaces could infringe upon individual rights.

Way Forward:

• Recommendations for Governments:

• Policy and Pricing: If implemented, states should set higher prices and taxes to balance the trade-off between ordering and drinking, using the revenue for mental health and substance use treatments.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Governments should collaborate with health departments to assess the impact of doorstep delivery and adjust policies accordingly.
• Uniform Standards: Central and state governments should establish uniform policy standards focused on public health rather than just revenue generation.
• The Supreme Court balances individual rights with public interest by acknowledging that while individual rights, such as the right to privacy, are crucial, they may be subject to reasonable restrictions for public health and safety.