Madurai: The Madras High Court on Thursday observed that while the state permits the manufacture, distribution, and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) through a licensing and regulatory framework, it raises a larger policy question: whether a suitably regulated framework for tapping, production, and sale of toddy can be devised in the state.
Court's Observations on Toddy
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted that toddy has traditionally been associated with palmyra-based livelihoods, and claims are made regarding its nutritional and other beneficial attributes. At the same time, the state seeks to justify the prohibition on the ground that toddy is an intoxicating liquor and that effective prevention of adulteration and monitoring of its production pose considerable administrative challenges.
The judge observed, "In fact, it is claimed that freshly tapped toddy ordinarily contains a lower concentration of alcohol than several varieties of IMFL and retains certain naturally occurring minerals and fermentation-derived constituents originating from palm sap."
Monitoring and Regulation
The judge remarked that the court cannot overlook the fact that authorities have been quite successful in detecting prohibition offences, recovering illicit liquor, and seizing vehicles involved in such activities. "If such extensive monitoring is possible in the case of prohibition offences, a similar mechanism to regulate toddy can be explored. Such an exercise may not only address concerns of public health and safety but also advance the interests of farmers, palm climbers, and others dependent upon palmyra-based occupations," he said.
However, the court acknowledged that the question of whether toddy should continue to remain prohibited or be permitted under a regulated licensing framework is ultimately a matter of policy falling within the domain of the state government.
Case Background
The observations came while disposing of a petition filed by Perumal Sait seeking a CBI probe into an incident where his son Manikandan was shot in his legs at close range by a police sub-inspector, Esakkiraja, during an altercation related to toddy tapping in Tenkasi district.
The judge expressed inability to understand the manner in which the police handled the issue and opined that there were police excesses in the case. Consequently, the judge transferred the investigation in the case registered against SI Esakkiraja and the counter case against Manikandan to the CB-CID. The judge directed the ADGP, CB-CID to constitute a special team of officers from northern districts to conduct an unbiased investigation.
Considering that the petitioner's son suffered grievous gunshot wounds in both legs and was hospitalized, the judge directed the state to pay interim compensation of Rs 2 lakh to cover medical expenses.
