‘AAP GOVERNMENT SITTING ON EXCISE LICENCES, OVER 40 RESTAURANTS AFFECTED’
In some cases, inspections have been completed and even fees have been paid, yet licences are not being granted to them,” Prakul added.
Riyaaz Amlani, president of the National Restaurant Association of India, told The Sunday Guardian, “Such a move (stopping new licences) will be a regressive step and goes against the Delhi government’s promise on ease of doing business. Restaurants provide for safe and licenced premises for liquor service. Any stoppage in Delhi will drive the customer, and more importantly the revenue, to neighbouring states. With restaurants not getting licences, there will be an increase in law and order problem, since many would start drinking at retail vends, on roads and in cars. The move also means a definite loss of revenue for the Delhi government as well. We have also made our representation to the government and they have promised to look into the matter.”
Multiple departments or agencies regulate restaurants in Delhi. To operate in the restaurant industry in India, one needs to obtain over 12 to 15 licences and NOCs (No Objection Certificates) from multiple authorities at the level of the state and Central governments. In Delhi alone, nine pre-approvals are required to apply for excise licences for restaurants that want to serve liquor and, in all, a minimum 23 licences or clearances are required to start operating a restaurant here. “The process is also not centralised and requires filing applications with the individual stakeholders, involving a lot of paperwork. Thus, it is a long and cumbersome activity. The laws are also very archaic and open to interpretation by the authorities,” Prakul said.
Following a massive protest held by the Swaraj Abhiyaan’s Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan in the past few months against the granting of mass liquor licences by the Aam Aadmi Party’s Delhi government, the latter recently announced a change in its excise policy of 2016-2017 and accordingly, the Excise Department has been asked not to issue any new licences till further orders. Anupam, Swaraj Abhiyaan spokesperson, told The Sunday Guardian, “Our campaign was against the opening of liquor shops in residential areas without the consent of locals. It was the Aam Aadmi Party’s election promise, but they failed to implement it. On the contrary, they had granted 399 liquor licences in 371 working days to various vendors, shops as well as restaurants. We were campaigning only against liquor shops in residential areas, but the Delhi government decided to stop issuing liquor licences to all, for which the government is answerable.”
The National Restaurant Association of India also worries that the sudden stopping of licences would hurt tourism prospects in Delhi. “The restaurant industry is integral to the promotion of tourism. Stoppage of excise licences to restaurants will negatively impact the tourism industry. It will also impact the image of Delhi as a major hub of tourist traffic in the country,” Prakul added. Repeated calls to the AAP government’s Excise Department did not yield any response, while Nagendra Sharma, spokesperson of the AAP government, said that he is “unaware of any such development and if such a thing has happened, it must have happened for a reason”. The affidavit clearly says that women are discouraged from going to dargahs. But there is no active prohibition. “The offer of worship at the dargah will be enabled keeping in mind the guaranteed and recognised aspirations of equality,” the affidavit says on the first page.
That is why a segregation in the place of worship. Referring to the Quran, the affidavit states, “Islam believes in equality among men and women. However, segregation between the sexes in the place of worship is contemplated.” As per Islam, equality assumes a different meaning. At one point, the affidavit states that the religion treats men and women equally. But within a few paragraphs, it puts additional restrictions on women. It does not stop at it. It also puts the onus of obeying those additional restrictions on women. It then says that there will be higher reward for women who offer prayers within the confines of their homes. “Islam does not encourage women to visit graves. However, it does not prohibit women from visiting graves, which would include shrines as well. Many regard discouragement of women from visiting dargahs as a soft prohibition since a believer would not prefer to act in a manner disapproved or discouraged in Islam,” it states.
Just two paragraphs before saying this, the affidavit talks about the reasons why going to graveyards was recommended by Prophet Muhammad himself: “Visiting graveyards generally, was recommended by Prophet Muhammad because the purpose of visiting graveyards is two-fold. One is to be reminded of the inevitability of death and to be accountable for one’s actions in the hereafter, and two, to offer prayers for mercy and forgiveness to Allah for the departed souls.”
At another place in the additional affidavit, the petitioner states, “There is no prohibition against women from having access to places of worship in Islam as women used to pray contemporaneously in the same mosque as Prophet Muhammad.” It then cites a few Hadiths to back it. It then states that the religion allows women to visit those places where there is segregation of sexes. “It is relevant to state that while Hadiths do not bar women from entering places of worship where there exists infrastructure for segregation, hadiths do indicate that in Islam there is a higher reward for women if they were to offer prayers (Namaz) in the house. In fact, even for men, offering Sunnah Namaz at their house carries greater rewards.”