Alcohol ban: Why people are fearful of Bihar’s new plan
The amendments proposed to the state’s prohibition law are so sweeping that they could put innocents behind bars and spur more people to crime, writes Satyavrat Mishra
It was a hot afternoon in May. Legal arguments flew back and forth as Acting Chief Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari heard the bail petition of one Ram Sumir Sharma of Aurangabad whose nephew was charged with illegal possession of liquor under the state’s new excise law.
The state government’s counsel opposed the petition and quoted Section 19 (4) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, which, according to him, bans possession of alcohol within the state. Only, as the judge pointed out, there was a loophole in the law.
“The state government has not prohibited possession of liquor by anyone and unless such a notification is published, possession of foreign liquor would not become a punishable offence under the Act,” Justice Ansari said in his order.
Bail was granted and the state government was left red-faced. Soon, many people booked under the new law started getting bail, including expelled Janata Dal (United) MLC Manorama Devi whose son, Rocky Yadav, killed a teenager in Gaya for overtaking his SUV; during a raid at her house, the police had found six bottles of IMFL (Indian-made foreign liquor).
Taking cue from the ruling, some magistrates also refused to allow the police to arrest people for possessing liquor.
The ban on alcohol, which was promised by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, was in tatters. A desperate excise department put together a list of new amendments to be introduced in the prohibition law. However, in their zeal to appease their masters, officials introduced some provisions in the proposed act which are being called “draconian” by several analysts and even leaders of the ruling coalition. The overkill The draft legislation, which was cleared by the state Cabinet on Monday, proposes to make possession of alcohol a non-bailable offence. Moreover, all adult members of a family of the person consuming and/or possessing liquor will be charged and arrested.
All adult family members living under the same roof will be treated as accomplices. According to the state government officers, they will be considered to have had knowledge about the drinking habits of the person who has been accused of violating the prohibition rule. The family members could face a jail term of up to five years — the term can go up to 10 years in case of illicit liquor trade from the house.
In the Bill, “family” is defined to cover husband, wife, adult children, brothers, sisters, parents and dependents living together in the house. Family members living outside the premise will not come under the ambit of the proposed law. The Bill also proposes to arm the police with the power to search any house without a warrant and put anyone suspected of being a habitual drinker under house arrest.
As the state Assembly is in session and the Bill is to be introduced on Monday, officers refuse to comment about it. Privately, they call the provisions reasonable and just. “Why should only the person consuming or possessing liquor be punished? Family members living in the house are also responsible. They have the knowledge that a crime is being committed here and they decide to keep mum. That makes them accomplices,” says a deputy secretary at the excise department.
The state government also wanted to prosecute neighbours and mukhiyas (headmen) if anyone was found possessing and consuming alcohol. For this it had included a separate provision in the proposed law. Excise Minister Abdul Jalil Mastan, a few weeks ago, argued that it’s impossible for people to not have knowledge about what’s going on in their neighbourhood. He said that people should keep a tab on people around them and inform the police about violations of the prohibition law.
However, that part was later removed when the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the largest partner in the ruling coalition, resisted.
It is said that RJD chief Lalu Prasad was particularly unhappy about it. According to party sources, in the recently concluded panchayat (village council) elections, a majority of the elected mukhiyas have links with the RJD. “A panchayat is a big area and in many cases covers more than one village. It’s impossible for the mukhiyas to keep tabs on all of his electorate. It would have sent a wrong message and could have hurt our chances in the future,” says a senior RJD leader. The reaction This new piece of legislation has put the state government at the receiving end of severe criticism. Several law makers, legal experts and analysts have condemned this Bill and accused the state government of “practically introducing police rule in the name of prohibition”.
According to experts, the stringent legislation will be legally untenable. “It is drastic, extreme, arbitrary, sweeping and everything a law should not be,” says a senior lawyer at the Patna High Court, “It violates an individual’s fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Criminal liability is individual, it can never be social. How can a family be responsible for the crime committed by a member? It is bound to be challenged.”
Some fear the law will be prone to rampant misuse as anyone can implicate an entire family by simply planting a small bottle of liquor in their house.
Apart from legal problems, the proposed new legislation has also put the RJD and JD-U at loggerheads. Many in RJD think that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is “overplaying” the prohibition card. On Thursday, Prasad openly expressed his displeasure about the Bill. “How can the police arrest my adult son if I am caught consuming liquor? One certainly cannot expect the wife of a drunkard to run to the police to get her husband arrested.”
Only a day earlier, several RJD and Congress leaders also openly asked Kumar to review the Bill.
“There is a need for review,” says RJD MLA Bhai Virendra. “The Bill has created an atmosphere of fear amongst the poor. The government must reconsider its decision to introduce these amendments to the law. After all, any law is supposed to give people a sense of security, not fear.” Senior RJD leader Raghuvansh Prasad Singh has also criticised the state government for “trying to bring in police raj in the name of prohibition”.
Congress MLA Shakeel Ahmed Khan asked the state government to “consult society” before introducing such “harsh measures”.
However, JD-U is