Home delivery of alcohol; government contradicts itself
Maharashtra government is planning to commemorate Gandhiji on his 150th birth anniversary in a very special way. The government has planned to initiate door delivery of alcohol soon. Excise minister has even issued a statement in this regard. Maharashtra will have the rare distinction of having started something so exquisite among civil services for the first time in the nation. Chief minister Fadnavis has decided to launch this since he does not have anything novel to impress upon people. He has even given a humanitarian reason to his decision. He says that have been many accidents involving drunk people in the recent times. Hence this measure would help check the number of those accidents. Because alcohol has been the main culprit in many incidents.
So you must understand this measure is not to increase alcohol sales but to check the number of accidents. The government will supply alcohol on the same lines as vegetables and groceries so that people save their precious lives owing to this scheme. Maharashtra government has reached the pinnacle of self discipline. It has camouflaged it's bad economic condition that has to be improved by alcohol sales. This measure will not reduce the number of people who will drink and still drive the cars home. The government still not explained what stops people from buying alcohol carrying at home in their own vehicles. With this measure bars will remain bars and homes will also become bus.
The rate of crime may increase instead of coming down. On one hand states like Bihar have been an example for the whole country to follow by banning sale of alcohol. Chief Minister of Bihar has said the rate of crime has come down ever since alcohol was banned in the state. Many states are planning to implement this ban in order to bring down crime and increase efficiency of civic services.
But the Maharashtra government is working in totally opposite direction. RSS has not opened its mouth regarding regularization of sale of alcohol in this manner though BJP speaks as if it is the only agency to uphold the culture of this country. RSS may have considered this as a reestablishment of Dharma because even the Gods and Goddesses consumed alcohol according to Puranas. All over the world, alcohol is one of the chief contributors of rising number of accidents. Can we ever imagine the drivers not to drink when we reach alcohol right to their homes?
In clear terms, only if we ban the sale alcohol, can we stop the drivers from consuming alcohol and driving their vehicles. Keeping the bars and arrack shops open and supplying alcohol directly to homes we can never bring down the rate of alcohol consumption or the rate of crime and accidents. Home delivery of alcohol is bound to have a negative effect on families and relationships within the families. Women will be the biggest victims of this illogical measure. Wives and children will wear heavy brunt on their lives with this. Children can see their parents drinking openly at home, which was an activity that used to happen behind closed doors earlier. This may have negative psychological impact and children may take to drinking sooner than later. excise department which is the biggest contributor to State's exchequer may still reap benefit.Through this the Maharashtra government is saying the Welfare of the society is really not its responsibility. State governments are taking shortcuts to compensate for the bad economical phase the country is passing through. By hook or by crook, they have to fill the coffers of the state's treasury.
As a result of this, Maharashtra government has given steep targets to officers and excise contractors. Which is why this novel idea of home delivery of alcohol seems to have come in their heads. The government which should have thought of novel ways of supplying wheat, rice, do, oil to people's homes has taken up upon itself the responsibility of supplying them with alcohol. When people talk about subsidies the government disease dismisses the stocks as anti developmental talks but now on the government here is criticism about home supply of alcohol it questions about how the government should keep the economy running, if not in this manner.
Looks like the government savita position where they have to run there so by regular rising sale alcohol and brothels or prostitution houses.Is unfortunate at the government laptop bottles of alcohol has come down to home delivering it for its own existence. The government needs to remember something. This measure may bring it some revenue. But this will be a major contributing factor for peoples ill health, economic distress and families breaking up. State's social fabric will suffer as the sale alcohol increases.
This will also contribute to the breaking down of moral consciousness among people. The sale of alcohol will have to be compensated with more than double the expenses on getting people health on track, and getting socio economic situation at a good level. No country is should be forced to run it show by the sale of alcohol. Let those days never descend upon us.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna calls for creation of judicial reforms commission to reduce pendency in courts
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
