Citing Dram Shop Laws that was in force in the United States during the prohibition era in 1930s, which fixed liability on the suppliers if alcohol was served to minors or those who later cause death or injury, Advocate Vijayaraghavan said a similar law should be introduced in Tamil Nadu fixing a minimum compensation to be paid to victims.

Senior advocate NL Rajah, who contended that a judicial order would help as there was no political will to push for compensation to victims of such crimes, stressed on the need to empower the victims to claim compensation.

 

Advocate Sanjay Pinto highlighted the irony in the State where the Managing Director of Tasmac is also the Commissioner of Prohibition. “It’s a case of the fence eating the crop,” he said. Prioritising health and well-being of the public, the Supreme Court had upheld the doctrine of ‘Res Extra Commercium’ (things beyond commerce) several time, he said.

“Putting a bottle of alcohol in the hands of an already drunk and violent man is no different from placing a knife in the hands of an insane man,” he added.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that social costs of alcohol were very high, prompting Rajah to remark that it may outweigh marijuana, even though only the latter was banned. However, Public Prosecutor A Natrajan submitted that a special leave petition has been filed against the High Court order.

Noting that he had taken up the issue as an expression of his anguish, Justice Venkatesh said his only intention was to find whether there was any way in which the State can compensate the victims of alcohol-induced crimes.

Directing the public prosecutor to file a counter in this regard, he posted the matter for further hearing to April 25.