TAKE ALL ROADS TO SAFETY

The right of the Supreme Court to use its judicial authority to enforce any measure which it considers to be of national interest is unquestionable. I do not question the views of Sri Madhava Menon also. He is a great legal luminary and I cannot venture to doubt his profound knowledge of the Constitution. Nor have I read the judgment.

However, I have some doubts. I read through once again Articles 36 to 51 of the Constitution, which relates to Directive Principles. I was struck by the fact that there seemed to be two categories of Directive Principles, those in which the State is virtually mandated to take action and those which the State shall “endeavour” to fulfil. Article 47 says that the State shall “endeavour” to bring about prohibition, just as Article 44 directs the State to “endeavour” to bring about a uniform civil code for its citizens and several other Articles that ask the State to endeavour to promote education, health, rights of workers and so on.

On the other hand, Article 48, relating to cow slaughter seems to be far more forceful. It says that “the State shall take steps for...prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”

This is not a reflection on my views regarding cow slaughter and prohibition. Such policy decisions are best taken by elected representatives of the people, who will deliberate over each issue, and finally decide what is best for the people taking into account their views which have pride o f place in a democracy.

As the provisions of the Constitution were deeply debated in the Constituent Assembly, each word has its own and religious places.

However, there have also been instances where the SC had made policy. A mechanism to tackle workplace harassment of women, in the by now legendary Vishakha and others versus State of Rajas-than case, is a weight and its own impact. Hence an injunction to “endeavour” to achieve something does not look to me like a Constitutional guarantee.

However, the SC gave its judgment in the light of the rising incidence of road accidents. In my view, the road infrastructure in India requires radical improvement to bring down the number of accidents. There is a gross mismatch between the size and number of vehicles entering the roads and the availability of infrastructure in many parts of the country. Enforcement of safety regulations, including reasonable speed restrictions, safety measures within vehicles and regular checks for drunken driving would bring down the incidence of accidents. Trauma centres within easy access would bring down the number of fatalities.

Moving liquor vending establishments half a kilometre away from highways may not stop drunken driving. Those who must drink will take the additional half kilometre in their stride and may, in fact, cause more accidents, as there would be agglomeration of vehicles on narrower roads. I am not going into the question of loss of excise revenue as this will readjust telling example. Even this was not strictly a new policy as the dignity of women was a Constitutional guarantee. Also, the Union government had signed an international treaty for the equality and protection of women in the workplace. This demonstrated inclination, but the intent was not made into law. Sensing the gap, the SC stepped in to lay down certain guidelines. It took another 10 years for the Centre to come up with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. This indicates the complimentarity of Constitutional institutions to uphold rule of law and give citizens constitutional governance. In this case, however, Prohibition was not only a Constitutional promise, but it was also implemented by the executive in various forms. A number of states wanted liquor outlets to maintain a distance from highways. The SC now has attempted to give the law more clarity, nothing more. The argument that the SC should have provided more proof of the liquor-accident link before pronouncing its verdict also seems amusing. We have had instances of popular stars running their vehicles over sleeping pavement dwellers in a fit of drunken driving. The insanity of driving under the influence of alcohol is so evident that it requires no proof. Still, the SC has based its order itself in a short while and there is not likely to be any reduction in the quantum of drinking. But the SC has highlighted a major policy initiative that is badly required in this country: the need for a cohesive strategy, encompassing the Centre as well as the States to deal with this major problem of rising number of road accidents in many parts of the country in a holistic manner. For this, we are beholden to the highest judicial authority of our land. (The author is a former

Cabinet Secretary) on the submissions made by National Road Safety Council and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH).

Thousands of people die in road accidents every year. Unless proof is provided that these deaths have no links to drunken driving, the SC’s move to reduce the ready availability of liquor along busy thoroughfares is a constitutionally valid act. However, to find such a proof is not the burden of the apex court. The worry that fivestar hotels and clubs, too, have been affected is misplaced. This is a welfare measure, intended to protect the life of citizens, and so has to be read liberally. Had it been a penal statute, we should have read it strictly. Of course, there are short-term issues like the possible unemployment of certain workers and relocation issues. It is up to the state to find solutions because public good always outweighs short-term losses.

Perhaps one solution would be to open online liquor shops. At least, the dehumanising wait in unending queues can be done away with.

(The author is founder of the National Law School of India University and West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)