Can a framework for tapping, production and sale of toddy be devised in the State, asks HC

The State seeks to justify the prohibition of toddy on the ground that toddy is an intoxicating liquor. However, it cannot be ignored that the State permits the manufacture, distribution and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor through a licensing and regulatory framework. This gives rise to a larger policy question as to whether a suitably regulated framework for tapping, production and sale of toddy can be devised in the State, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has said.

Justice B. Pugalendhi said Palm tree (Borassus flabellifer) is the State Tree of Tamil Nadu and is a defining symbol of the State’s cultural and ecological identity.

The court said 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.

However, it cannot be ignored that the State permits the manufacture, distribution and sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor through a licensing and regulatory framework established under the very same enactment. Such sale is undertaken through the State-controlled retail network and constitutes a significant source of revenue to the State. 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, the court said.

This gives rise to a larger policy question as to whether a suitably regulated framework for tapping, production and sale of toddy can be devised in the State. The experience of neighbouring States, where toddy is permitted under regulated licensing systems, demonstrates that alternative regulatory models are available, the court said.

The court cannot overlook the fact that the authorities have been quite successful in detecting prohibition offences, recovering illicit liquor and seizing the 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, the court said.

The court is conscious that the question 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. The observations made are not intended to express any opinion on the desirability of either course, but only to highlight that the issue may warrant consideration by the government in the light of the competing interests of public health, regulatory feasibility, revenue generation and the protection of traditional livelihoods, the court said.

The court made the observation while transferring the probe into the case pertaining to toddy tapper P. Manikandan being shot at by Sub-Inspector of Police Esakki Raja in Tenkasi district following a scuffle, to the CB-CID.

The court directed the ADGP, CB-CID to constitute a special team consisting of officers from the northern districts and conduct an unbiased investigation into the incident.

Considering the fact that Manikandan suffered grievous injuries in both his legs caused due to gun-shot wounds and was hospitalised, the court ordered an interim compensation of ₹2 lakh to meet the medical expenses, payable by the State. The court issued the direction while disposing of the petition filed by Perumal Sait, father of Manikandan who sought a CBI probe into the incident and compensation for the grievous injuries suffered by his son.