Latest news with #TamilNaduProhibitionAct
Time of India
23-06-2025
- General
- Time of India
Seeman climbs a tree, and Tamil Nadu starts tapping into the toddy debate again
The head of the Naam Tamizhar Katchi (We Tamils Party) caused a stir recently by climbing a palmyra tree and tapping toddy from its inflorescence. In doing so, he defied Section 4(d) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, which bans tapping from any toddy-producing tree, and invited prosecution under Section 4(e), which carries a penalty of up to three months in prison and a fine of ₹1,000. Tapping toddy from the palmyra or coconut tree and fermenting it into liquor has been an age-old tradition across South India. Ancient Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar, who composed 1,330 couplets on various subjects, even devoted a chapter to verses on "abstinence from toddy". His advice was not just moral but practical, warning of the damage liquor can do to the brain. Yet, despite this counsel tendered 2,000 years ago, toddy consumption continues unchecked in rural areas. Toddy came into the spotlight 90 years ago when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into effect and elections were held. The Congress came to power in eight provincial assemblies. In Madras Presidency, C Rajagopalachari was elected Premier, and one of his first actions was to implement prohibition in the province, in line with the Congress promise. Asked about the loss of revenue, Rajaji responded by introducing India's first sales tax legislation, imposing a 1% tax on all goods sold and purchased to offset the shortfall. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 1 Bite Daily On An Empty Stomach Can Transform Your Health Gundry MD Learn More Undo However, after the Congress resigned from the provincial govts, the British did not waste any time. They lifted prohibition in 1944 and allowed the free sale of liquor to replenish the treasury through abkari contracts. After Independence, prohibition was reintroduced in 1948, driven by Mahatma Gandhi's insistence on promoting total abstinence from alcohol. The Constitution, which came into force in 1950, included Article 47, which stated that "the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health". Madras Province remained dry for nearly two decades under Congress rule. When DMK came to power under chief minister C N Annadurai, prohibition continued. After that, TN's liquor policy became a back-and-forth struggle, with each govt deciding whether the state would be dry based on its own stance on the issue. In 1971, when M Karunanidhi became chief minister, prohibition was lifted. Just two years later, it was reintroduced. In 1977, M G Ramachandran (MGR) became chief minister and relaxed prohibition, but liquor consumption was only allowed with a permit. By 1980, liquor was back on the scene, available even in sachets. When J Jayalalithaa assumed office in 1991, she reimposed prohibition. In 2003, the state govt took control of the procurement and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), establishing a monopoly. The Prohibition Act and related rules were amended, giving the govt exclusive rights over liquor sales in TN. It was ironic that the rules allowing the state to monopolise IMFL sales were created under the same Prohibition Act of 1937, effectively mocking the constitutional directive under Article 47. While toddy is a fermented juice tapped from coconut and palmyra trees, its unfermented form is known as padhaneer. The Prohibition Act defines padhaneer as "juice drawn from a coconut, palmyra, date, or any other kind of palm tree into receptacles treated to prevent any fermentation and not fermented". Over time, the argument that toddy is a healthier, more natural alcoholic drink than IMFL began to gain traction. In the 1960s, a political party called the Toddy Seekers Kazhagam contested elections, though unsuccessfully, demanding the right to tap toddy. Since the Tamil Nadu govt established the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) for the retail vending of IMFL, a renewed toddy movement has begun, framing the debate as one between swadeshi (indigenous) and videshi (foreign) alcohol. The head of the movement even threw an open challenge, offering ₹1 crore to anyone who could prove toddy was harmful to health. Tasmac emerged as the state's biggest source of revenue, generating ₹50,000 crore annually. As a result, the govt was unwilling to consider pleas for opening toddy shops or permitting the tapping of toddy from coconut and palmyra trees. In 2007, during Karunanidhi's tenure as chief minister, a public interest litigation was filed, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the state to sell IMFL while prohibiting the tapping and consumption of toddy. A division bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the case and held that "a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a privilege" (2007). Though petitioners claimed that toddy was a natural drink, the court observed that it could be adulterated with chemicals to increase its potency and rejected the argument. To respond to demands from coconut and palm workers who lost livelihoods, the Karunanidhi govt appointed a committee chaired by Justice K P Sivasubramaniam. It included several govt officials and a police officer. However, the committee's report was not unanimous. Justice Sivasubramaniam said total prohibition was ideal but added that in the absence of such prohibition, there was no harm in allowing the production and consumption of toddy. Govt officials on the committee dissented. Using this dissent, the Karunanidhi govt appointed another official committee to review the report and submit fresh recommendations. In his report, Justice Sivasubramaniam remarked on the irony of his appointment, wondering how a teetotaller like him was chosen to head a committee on toddy tapping. Though he was in the minority, he clearly stated that while total prohibition was not being enforced, the state could permit toddy tapping. However, he remained a staunch supporter of prohibition. He declared that he would never allow toddy tapping in his own coconut grove as he believed the decision to lift prohibition brought ruin to thousands of families. He also noted that the Kongu region of western Tamil Nadu, a stronghold for the prohibition movement during the pre-independence era, was now at the forefront of demands to allow toddy tapping. Today, as most political parties have distanced themselves from the issue, Seeman has reopened the debate. In a dramatic gesture, he climbed a palmyra tree fitted with wooden planks, tapped the juice, and drank it in defiance of the law. Though the BJP's manifesto includes a promise to permit toddy tapping, the party quickly distanced itself from Seeman's actions. A police official said they were examining whether to initiate prosecution against the NTK leader. Several DMK allies questioned how Seeman could campaign for total prohibition while making an exception for toddy and extolling its virtues. (The writer is a retired judge of Madras high court) The head of the Naam Tamizhar Katchi (We Tamils Party) caused a stir recently by climbing a palmyra tree and tapping toddy from its inflorescence. In doing so, he defied Section 4(d) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, which bans tapping from any toddy-producing tree, and invited prosecution under Section 4(e), which carries a penalty of up to three months in prison and a fine of ₹1,000. Tapping toddy from the palmyra or coconut tree and fermenting it into liquor has been an age-old tradition across South India. Ancient Tamil poet Thiruvalluvar, who composed 1,330 couplets on various subjects, even devoted a chapter to verses on "abstinence from toddy". His advice was not just moral but practical, warning of the damage liquor can do to the brain. Yet, despite this counsel tendered 2,000 years ago, toddy consumption continues unchecked in rural areas. Toddy came into the spotlight 90 years ago when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into effect and elections were held. The Congress came to power in eight provincial assemblies. In Madras Presidency, C Rajagopalachari was elected Premier, and one of his first actions was to implement prohibition in the province, in line with the Congress promise. Asked about the loss of revenue, Rajaji responded by introducing India's first sales tax legislation, imposing a 1% tax on all goods sold and purchased to offset the shortfall. However, after the Congress resigned from the provincial govts, the British did not waste any time. They lifted prohibition in 1944 and allowed the free sale of liquor to replenish the treasury through abkari contracts. After Independence, prohibition was reintroduced in 1948, driven by Mahatma Gandhi's insistence on promoting total abstinence from alcohol. The Constitution, which came into force in 1950, included Article 47, which stated that "the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health". Madras Province remained dry for nearly two decades under Congress rule. When DMK came to power under chief minister C N Annadurai, prohibition continued. After that, TN's liquor policy became a back-and-forth struggle, with each govt deciding whether the state would be dry based on its own stance on the issue. In 1971, when M Karunanidhi became chief minister, prohibition was lifted. Just two years later, it was reintroduced. In 1977, M G Ramachandran (MGR) became chief minister and relaxed prohibition, but liquor consumption was only allowed with a permit. By 1980, liquor was back on the scene, available even in sachets. When J Jayalalithaa assumed office in 1991, she reimposed prohibition. In 2003, the state govt took control of the procurement and retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), establishing a monopoly. The Prohibition Act and related rules were amended, giving the govt exclusive rights over liquor sales in TN. It was ironic that the rules allowing the state to monopolise IMFL sales were created under the same Prohibition Act of 1937, effectively mocking the constitutional directive under Article 47. While toddy is a fermented juice tapped from coconut and palmyra trees, its unfermented form is known as padhaneer. The Prohibition Act defines padhaneer as "juice drawn from a coconut, palmyra, date, or any other kind of palm tree into receptacles treated to prevent any fermentation and not fermented". Over time, the argument that toddy is a healthier, more natural alcoholic drink than IMFL began to gain traction. In the 1960s, a political party called the Toddy Seekers Kazhagam contested elections, though unsuccessfully, demanding the right to tap toddy. Since the Tamil Nadu govt established the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) for the retail vending of IMFL, a renewed toddy movement has begun, framing the debate as one between swadeshi (indigenous) and videshi (foreign) alcohol. The head of the movement even threw an open challenge, offering ₹1 crore to anyone who could prove toddy was harmful to health. Tasmac emerged as the state's biggest source of revenue, generating ₹50,000 crore annually. As a result, the govt was unwilling to consider pleas for opening toddy shops or permitting the tapping of toddy from coconut and palmyra trees. In 2007, during Karunanidhi's tenure as chief minister, a public interest litigation was filed, claiming that it was unconstitutional for the state to sell IMFL while prohibiting the tapping and consumption of toddy. A division bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the case and held that "a citizen has no fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as a privilege" (2007). Though petitioners claimed that toddy was a natural drink, the court observed that it could be adulterated with chemicals to increase its potency and rejected the argument. To respond to demands from coconut and palm workers who lost livelihoods, the Karunanidhi govt appointed a committee chaired by Justice K P Sivasubramaniam. It included several govt officials and a police officer. However, the committee's report was not unanimous. Justice Sivasubramaniam said total prohibition was ideal but added that in the absence of such prohibition, there was no harm in allowing the production and consumption of toddy. Govt officials on the committee dissented. Using this dissent, the Karunanidhi govt appointed another official committee to review the report and submit fresh recommendations. In his report, Justice Sivasubramaniam remarked on the irony of his appointment, wondering how a teetotaller like him was chosen to head a committee on toddy tapping. Though he was in the minority, he clearly stated that while total prohibition was not being enforced, the state could permit toddy tapping. However, he remained a staunch supporter of prohibition. He declared that he would never allow toddy tapping in his own coconut grove as he believed the decision to lift prohibition brought ruin to thousands of families. He also noted that the Kongu region of western Tamil Nadu, a stronghold for the prohibition movement during the pre-independence era, was now at the forefront of demands to allow toddy tapping. Today, as most political parties have distanced themselves from the issue, Seeman has reopened the debate. In a dramatic gesture, he climbed a palmyra tree fitted with wooden planks, tapped the juice, and drank it in defiance of the law. Though the BJP's manifesto includes a promise to permit toddy tapping, the party quickly distanced itself from Seeman's actions. A police official said they were examining whether to initiate prosecution against the NTK leader. Several DMK allies questioned how Seeman could campaign for total prohibition while making an exception for toddy and extolling its virtues. (The writer is a retired judge of Madras high court)
The Hindu
24-05-2025
- The Hindu
Politics of the palm: A protest wrapped in a festival in Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu's tryst with toddy, a byproduct of the State's official tree, the palmyra, has been steeped in complexity since the implementation of the Prohibition Act in 1937. For years now, toddy tappers have petitioned the government to legalise toddy, categorising it as a health drink. The government has steadily rejected the demand, continuing to criminalise the tapping of this product, all while several regimes have toyed with its legalisation. What might seem like a moot point to the rest of the State has had a direct impact on the lives of those who scale the rough trunk of a tree that thrives in barren landscapes. Think of a palm tree climber. A visual of a tired man with ropes around his hips and legs sweating profusely whilst a blazing sun shines, somehow emerges. A festival in Villupuram's Narasinganur titled Pana Kanavu Vizha [The Palmyra Dream Festival] village wished to change this narrative of a tired toddy tapper. On May 24, when an oppressive humidity took over the village and not a single blade of grass moved due to the stillness, around 2,000 people from different parts of the world, danced, performed martial arts, scaled the palm, drank padaneer and toddy, and chose to picnic, all whilst celebrating the palm. Although it seemed like a gala on the outside with fire dances and ice candy, the event concealed within its folds, a vociferous protest. Associations protecting the rights of toddy tappers from across the State, were present, providing monetary aid to the cause. D. Pandian, at the forefront of the Tamil Nadu Palm Tree Climbers Protection Association, is the convenor of the Pana Kanavu Vizha. The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, outlines the penalties that come with the extraction of toddy. It is a non-bailable offence, he says. For years now, the criticism that the government has raised against toddy tapping and its sale, especially since its classification as an alcoholic drink category after brief stints of government-run toddy shops in the 1970s and 1980s, is the adulteration. Pandian says that those brewing spurious liquor and adulteration deserve punishment. However, toddy tapping is an entirely different business. An article in The Hindu from September 30, 1970, shows that the demand has existed for years. 'A deputation of the Tamil Nadu Kal Venduvore Kazhagam, led by Dr. M. A. Karim, met the Chief Minister, Mr. M. Karunanidhi, on Tuesday and presented a memorandum pleading for exemption of toddy from the Prohibition Act,' the article says. 'They tell us that they do not know how to regulate or do quality checks of our products. We tell them to come with their equipment. We do not want to follow a model like that of Kerala's where toddy shops are run by the government. We do not want toddy shops at all. Those who grow and tap palm though, should be allowed to tap it and sell it to those who seek it,' he says. Toddy is usually tapped between December and May but peak season tends to be during summer months. Each tree produces between two and five litres of toddy and each litre is sold for ₹100 in a hush-hush way. Padaneer, another liquid byproduct of the tree, is priced at ₹120 because the tree requires a coating of alkaline before tapping. 'It is also far more effort to tap for padaneer,' says T. Vinayagam, district head of the association's Tiruvannamalai division. Until recently, the practice of paying off the police to tap toddy in a clandestine manner existed across the State. 'But why should we be criminalised for climbing a tree? Do you know the number of times the police have come and pulled our fathers and grandfathers off the trunk of the tree? It was horrific to watch. That's why there are so few tree climbers today,' says V. Ranjini, the head of the women's wing of the Tiruvannamalai district's association. Ranjini adds that the children as young as three, are given toddy as it is said to have several health benefits. An article from The Hindu dating back to July 2, 1931, by Colonel J N Chopra, from the School of Tropical Medicine, Calcutta, speaks of the vitamins benefits available in a toddy drink. Harris Karishma, who scales the palm treat with grace swears by the healing powers of toddy which she claims cleared her skin condition. It is a video of her inviting people to this festival that went viral on social media. 'Today, even climbing a tree is political but it is in my blood. That is not going to change,' she says.
New Indian Express
02-05-2025
- New Indian Express
Tasmac code that allowed action against staff sans inquiry abolished
CHENNAI: In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has struck down a code devised by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) that provided for taking punitive action against the employees for wrongdoings without holding any inquiry before initiating such action. The court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Tasmac and directed it to pay the amount to the petitioner union. The ruling was given by Justice A D Maria Clete on the petitions filed by Tamil Nadu Tasmac workers union seeking the court to quash the 'Code of Prevention and Detection of Fraudulent Acts in Tasmac-2014' brought into force by the TN government's liquor business entity, stating it was in violation of the Tamil Nadu Model Standing Orders and provided for punishments which are not prescribed in the model standing orders. Justice Maria Clete, in the recent judgment, held that fundamentally Tasmac cannot implement a new code without securing certification of standing orders in accordance with law. 'The justification sought to be advanced for the 2014 code based on the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, is wholly misplaced, as that enactment has no bearing on the disciplinary action to be taken against workmen for alleged misconduct. The Prohibition Act does not confer any authority upon Tasmac to frame rules or regulations governing service conditions,' she said. The judge also noted that the 2014 code 'clearly constitutes a transgression' of the prohibition imposed under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that mandates issuance of a prior notice to the workers. Expressing concern about the Tasmac – having 4,820 retail liquor outlets and a workforce of about 24,000 – not complying with the orders of the high court categorically directing it to adhere to the model standing orders for taking disciplinary action, the judge noted that it has persistently disregarded its legal obligations. Apart from striking down the 2014 code, the judge also quashed the communication sent to the union by the Joint Commissioner of Labour (JCL), Chennai, who had endorsed the code stating it is in consonance with the model standing orders.
The Hindu
29-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
From prohibition to monopoly: tracing liquor policy and emergence of TASMAC
Tamil Nadu did not have a consistent policy with respect to liquor sales after Independence until the early 2000s. The successive governments, led by the DMK and the AIADMK, oscillated from one extreme to the other. In 1937, prohibition was introduced in Salem district by C. Rajagopalachari, Chief Minister of the Madras Presidency. Later, it was extended to other districts, and prohibition was in force until 1971. The DMK government, headed by M. Karunanidhi, suspended it in 1971 and allowed the sale of arrack and toddy. However, the sale was stopped in 1974. After this, two hooch tragedies occurred, in 1975 and 1976. In 1981, the AIADMK government, headed by M.G. Ramachandran (MGR), reintroduced the sale of arrack and toddy. In 1987, the sale of arrack and toddy was banned again. In 1988 and 1990, illicit liquor claimed many lives in Tamil Nadu. In 1990, when the DMK was in power, the sale of arrack and toddy was revived, and it continued up to July 16, 1991. After the AIADMK came to power in 1991, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa announced a ban on the sale of arrack and toddy. In the period following the change in policy, many deaths due to the consumption of illicit liquor were reported. According to a government official, the death of a large number of people since the sale of arrack and toddy was banned in 1991 'indicates a need for selling safe liquor at an affordable price for the poor,' said a report in Frontline, a sister publication of The Hindu. Increasing revenue The MGR government decided in 1983 to take over the wholesale trade in arrack and Indian Made Foreign Spirits (IMFS) with effect from June 1, 1983. A report in The Hindu on May 28, 1983 said an ordinance to this effect was promulgated by Governor Sundar Lal Khurana. A public sector corporation, known as the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Limited, was formed to undertake the supply of arrack and IMFS to the retailers. Quoting the explanatory statement added to the ordinance, the report said the question of the government taking over from the private sector the manufacture and wholesale supply of arrack and IMFS had been under the consideration of the government for some time. The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise had also suggested takeover of the wholesale trade with a view to augmenting the revenue. Under the provisions of the ordinance that amended the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, the validity of all the private sector wholesale licences with respect to arrack and IMFS was to expire on May 31, 1983. The new corporation, with a share capital of ₹5 crore, would open as many branches as necessary, at least one branch in each district, the report added. Lot system Malpractices were reported in retail vending of liquor. To check this, the government in 2001-02 introduced the lots system. Under this system that replaced the auction, applicants for shops were identified on the basis of lots after they agreed to pay an amount fixed for each shop on the basis of potential revenue. Despite the introduction of the lots, the cartels ensured that a considerable number of shops remained unauctioned. In 2002-03, only 5,300 of the 7,000 notified outlets could be auctioned due to the cartelisation, The Hindu reported. 'The intention of the groups was to control the retail market and cause a loss of revenue to the State government. The fact that a number of persons withdrew after getting allotment of shops and sought refund indicated that cartelisation had not been eliminated,' said a report in this newspaper quoting a government press release. Merit-based selection To prevent the sale of spurious and contraband liquor and taking note of the adverse effects of cartelisation and cornering of shops, as well as other irregularities such as violation of the maximum retail price fixed by the State, the government announced a merit-based system for selecting applicants for the excise year 2003-04 for grant of privilege to run retail shops. This was to be done by constituting district-level selection committees consisting of two retired judicial officers, not below the rank of district munsif. But far from breaking cartels, the system resulted in reducing the number of applicants, though many had bought application forms, the report said. The government realised the need to take firm steps to put down the cartels, which had seriously affected the retail trade of IMFS. 'Because of malpractices by the cartels, the State lost revenue. Despite the State-owned TASMAC handling the wholesale trade, private retailers of IMFS have been indulging in malpractices. There have also been violations of the maximum retail price,' a government release said. Serious health hazards Accusing the retailers of acting against the interest of consumers, the government pointed out in the release that unfair trade practices had posed serious public health hazards. The government was convinced that the only way to break the cartels was to let the State-owned TASMAC handle the retail trade. Another report in The Hindu dated January 27, 2003, quoting an official press release, said: 'The TASMAC and its agency, namely cooperatives, alone will hereafter undertake retail trade. The government has, therefore, promulgated an Ordinance, amending the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, to achieve the above purpose.' With effect from November 29, 2003, the TASMAC started doing retail liquor vending too. This system is in vogue to this day.
