Contradictory for welfare government to establish more hospitals on and simultaneously open TASMAC liquor shops, says HC
A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete said when Right to Health is a fundamental right, the State must ensure that the prohibition is slowly implemented in a phased manner to reduce harm to public health.
The court was hearing the public interest litigation petition filed by K. Kannan of Dindigul. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to close a Tasmac shop located on Tiruchi road in Dindigul. He said the road was used by school children. The children and other road users were finding it difficult to use the road freely and peacefully, he said.
In the counter affidavit, Dindigul District Tasmac Manager submitted that the claim the liquor shop was located close to school, health and religious institutions was incorrect. The shop was located within Corporation limits, where the prohibited distance was 50 meters as per Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. Since the Tasmac shop was situated in a commercial area, the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules states that the distance restriction shall not apply.
The court said it was of the considered view that mere guidelines and rules fixing certain distances cannot be the sole criterion. In the present case, the road was used by children to reach their school and it served as a direct pathway. Consequently, the Tasmac shop would undoubtedly cause public nuisance to the road users, children attending the school and persons going to the Church.
The judges said, the rules setting minimum distances are regulatory thresholds, but they do not exhaust all public health and welfare concerns. Mere compliance with the distance rule does not validate a location if the broader environment is harmful. Undoubtedly, a Tasmac shop may cause nuisance to the road users in the locality, particularly, to the children during school hours. It is the duty of the State to ensure that no such nuisance is caused to the citizens and road users.
Besides, Article 47 of the Constitution directs that the State shall regard raising the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties and in particular the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. It is a Constitutional philosophy and the Directive principles insist that a welfare government should strive wholeheartedly to enforce prohibition, rather than establish more Tasmac shops which adversely affect public health.
Closure of one Tasmac shop would not cause any prejudice but would rather benefit the public at large, the court observed and directed the authorities to close the Tasmac shop in two weeks. The judges posted the matter for reporting compliance on June 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
17 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
J&K an exception, no delimitation exercise prior to 2026 Census: SC
NEW DELHI: Acknowledging an exception carved out for Jammu and Kashmir , the Supreme Court on Friday said delimitation exercises for other states cannot be conducted prior to publication of data of first census after 2026 as that would be against the mandate of Article 170(3) of the Constitution. "The delimitation process is, by design, a legislative and executive function. If the SC were to compel carrying out of delimitation exercise (in a particular state) through a judicial fiat, it would likely be construed as an interference in the policy-making prerogative of the Executive," said a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Kant said, "The Constitutional edifice carefully balances institutional roles, and any disruption of that equilibrium would undermine both the legitimacy and functional integrity of the democratic process." The bench said the constitutional mandate under Article 170(3) bars any delimitation exercise concerning states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana or any other state. It dismissed a writ petition challenging the Centre's decision to conduct delimitation only for J&K and not for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, saying the constitutional mandate - delimitation exercise based on first census after 2026 - does not apply to UTs. The petitioner's counsel Rao Ranjit said that though J&K Reorganisation Act was passed in 2019, the delimitation exercise was carried out under the 2020 notification, but even though the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act was passed in 2014, the delimitation exercise had not been carried out for these two states even after a decade. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Blood cancer is taking our curious baby away from us! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo Solicitor general Tushar Mehta along with ASG K M Nataraj for the Centre said as per the mandate of Articles 80 and 170 of the Constitution, no readjustment of seats or divisions of states into territorial constituencies can be undertaken until the relevant data from first census conducted after 2026 is published. For the Election Commission, senior advocate Maninder Singh said the EC has no jurisdiction to opine on the validity of delimitation exercise as its role is only to facilitate implementation of the process. The SC accepted the Centre's stand and said the AP Reorganisation Act is subject to the constitutional provisions, as expressly provided in the Act itself. If delimitation exercise is allowed to be carried out in some states, then it would open a flood gate of similar demands from the other states, he said. The bench said the petitioner cannot seek to draw delimitation parity between states of AP and Telangana with that of the Union Territory of J&K, to which Article 170(3) has no application. Though it acknowledged legitimate expectations of people of the two states for delimitation exercise, it ruled that such expectations cannot override constitutional mandate.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Chandigarh launches inclusive education policy for kids with disabilities
The Chandigarh Administration on Friday rolled out its first comprehensive Education Policy for Children with Special Needs – 2025, aimed at ensuring barrier-free, dignified, and quality education for children with benchmark disabilities. The policy was launched at Punjab Raj Bhavan by Punjab Governor and UT Administrator Gulab Chand Kataria, who called it 'a strong initiative towards inclusiveness and the spirit of equality guaranteed by the Constitution'. Kataria underlined the social significance of the step, stating, 'the measure of the true progress of any society is how it empowers its weakest sections. This policy is not just limited to opening the doors of schools, it is also a means to bring out the inherent talent and potential of the children. Chandigarh is proud that we are strengthening the spirit of equal opportunity and inclusion in the field of education'. Framed in line with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the policy guarantees free and compulsory education in government and aided schools for children with disabilities up to the age of 18. For those unable to attend regular classes, home-based education will be provided, supported by a transport allowance and auxiliary services. Admissions have been made entirely non-discriminatory, with all inclusive neighbourhood schools required to admit disabled children. A three per cent reservation has also been set aside for them within the 25 per cent quota for economically weaker sections under the Right to Education Act. Private schools will now be obliged to admit students with special needs and provide tailored educational support. The framework mandates the appointment of trained special educators for inclusive classrooms, adapted curricula, Braille and large-print textbooks, sign language resources, and modified evaluation systems. Collaboration with special schools and integrated education centres will support children with severe disabilities, while vocational and skill training from Class 9 onwards will prepare them for independent livelihoods. To foster a sensitive learning environment, the policy calls for regular training and awareness programmes for teachers, parents and classmates. A grievance redressal committee in every school and a state-level monitoring body will oversee its implementation. Senior officials, including Chief Secretary Rajiv Verma, Principal Secretary to the Governor Vivek Pratap Singh, Education Secretary Prerna Puri and Director of School Education Harsuhinder Pal Singh Brar, were present at the launch. Officials said the new policy represents 'an inspirational effort to strengthen the values of social justice, inclusion and compassion' and carries the message that 'disability is not a limitation; with the right environment and opportunities, every child can make society proud with their talent'.
