There is never a dull moment in the life and times of our nation. And even at the risk of trivializing the spirit (pun intended) of the Public Interest Litigation which led to the Supreme Court, for the removal of all liquor outlets within 500 metres of state and National Highways, let us ask if this will indeed lead to greater road safety and the prevention of fatal accidents.
With utmost respect to the Court’s verdict which will obviously hold unless challenged legally and relief sought and got, the premise of the petitioner needs to be understood — which we are unable to — since there are more questions than answers on the justification of the petitioner and all those who are backing him. And here are the questions with seemingly no apparent answers forthcoming:
a) By removing liquor outlets, or restaurants or taking away licences of iconic bars, many of which were built on places which got demarcated as Highways later, is the battle against road accidents won?
b) Do road accidents, happen mainly — and we aren’t saying only — because men, after drinking on highway outlets, drive and cause accidents
c) Statistics say “Almost 97% of the road accidents are caused by rash or negligent driving including drunken driving.” Those favouring the ban on liquor outlets are freely quoting this statistic without looking at this. How does this statistic show that these were caused by drunk drivers and secondly even if they were drunk, is there empirical evidence that liquor was consumed preceding the fatal accident at highway outlets?
Even as many outlets, like the iconic Longuinhos in Margao are under threat, because the highway passes through Margao town, the questions above need to be answered before the Supreme Court’s order, directing all the state governments to clear all the liquor shops from state and national highways, by 1st of April, comes into renewed effect.
Let us note and accept that 1.5 lakh deaths take place in road accidents every year. 17 deaths take place every hour on Indian roads. But this argument cannot be thrown at liquor dealers and restaurant owners. These accidents take place due to rash and negligent driving and while alcohol may be one of its main causes, the absence of any deterrent or punishment, allows motorists, especially the young to drive or ride like maniacs.
It is important to analyse the correlation between fatal accidents and alcohol consumption by doing a minute study comparing the time of such accidents. It can be assumed that most of the drinking happens post sunset and if road accidents from say 7 am to 7 pm, outscore those between 7 pm and 7 am, then it’s difficult to co-relate rash and negligent driving to accidents caused by drunken driving.
Advocate Gaurav Agarwal is assisting an SC bench which constituted a high-powered panel under Justice KS Radhakrishnan. Formed on April 22, 2014 on the basis of a PIL, the panel was to measure and monitor the implementation of road safety laws in the country. (Source HT report), This committee has pointed out serious lapses in implementation of safety laws by States, which has led to increase in number of road fatalities. Several recommendations have been suggested including drafting a road safety policy.
The solution should be on these lines. “Removing” bars, restaurants, liquor outlets in a tourist dependent state like Goa will be a body blow to tourism. The bottom line is that safety of motorists cannot be compromised but why should liquor sellers and more importantly, ancient bars and restaurants have to pay this unfair price?
