Supreme Court in March 2017 confirmed its December order on banning sale of liquor near National and State highways.
It went on to assert that the proscription would cover not just retail outlets but hotels and bars too.
What are the shortcomings?
The order is intended to prevent drunk driving, which is without doubt a contributor to road accidents and fatalities.
More than a third of the liquor sale and consumption points will be hit.
The order does not exempt outlets in cities and towns, where most of the consumers are local residents.
The court’s clarification goes against the opinion Attorney-General gave the Kerala govt that the December order applied only to retail outlets and not to bar-attached hotels and parlours.
Retail outlets can perhaps move another 500 m with minimal expense and no great loss of clientele but established hotels and clubs does not enjoy such luxury.
If drunk driving along the highways is the provocation for the order, there can be no reason to cover clubs that serve only their members.
State governments will face a huge loss in revenue.
Smaller administrative units such as Union Territories will be the worst-hit.
Puducherry, which includes enclaves such as Mahe, will find relocation of many shops impossible, as they are caught between the highway and the sea.
Goa, a small State that depends heavily on tourism, is in a similarly difficult situation.
The relaxation of the liquor-free zone from 500 m to 220 m from the highways in the case of areas with a population of 20,000 or less might only partly address their concerns.
Prohibition as a policy has had a history of failure. Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes.
