It's time to revisit excise policies

Existence of a toddy shop in a residential area in compliance with all laws cannot be said to be an infringement of right to privacy of the inhabitants of the locality, the Kerala High Court recently held [SK Pavithran & Ors. v Laisy Santhosh & Ors]. The court was categorical in stating that disruption of public order or peace is not to be understood as equivalent to breach of privacy.

The judgment might not have gone down well with not only the said petitioners but also by some others who might be facing a problem with such licensed activities in the residential areas. The court observed that the conduct of a toddy shop may cause nuisance or breach of public peace or raise moral concerns but the same cannot amount to breach of privacy. "Nuisance, breach of peace, moral concerns etc., have nothing to do with privacy, though disruption of public order, peace and tranquillity may at times lead to infringement of privacy rights. But, disruption of public order, peace and tranquillity cannot be understood as synonymous to breach of privacy rights," the court said.

Having said this, the court overturned a judgment by a single-Judge who had held otherwise. The Division Bench also cautioned that the expansive view of privacy rights taken by the single judge could lead to a domino effect with increasing conflicts regarding what activities are permissible or not near residential areas. The judgement part is perfect and one has to agree with the larger bench observations. On pretext of privacy one cannot prevent livelihood activities from going on, that too when legally permitted and a licence is obtained. As the court observed, there are umpteen avocations and activities which people may pursue for their livelihood near the place of residence of others and a very wide definition of privacy rights protected under the Constitution as made by the learned Single Judge would give rise to conflicts as to the permissible and non-permissible activities near a residential house.

The petitioner against the toddy shop bought the vacant plot adjacent to the toddy shop and later constructed a house there. The toddy shop has been in existence in the area for a long time, much before the house came up adjacent to it. The government even asked the toddy shop to shift to an unobjectionable place if found. It is not to be. The court found no infirmity in the government policy, too. We have similar problems in several cities and states in the country. In the Telugu States too, we have seen protests conducted by the locals against such toddy shops or bars and pubs. The Kerala case is different in every sense. But, in case of the bars located in Telugu States there are any number of complaints of street brawls, unruly behaviour, public nuisance, disturbance to the peace of the area and other related instances. Here, the governments have given licences to the bars and pubs in residential localities and turn a blind eye to their unruly functioning. It is time the governments revisit their Excise policy and behave responsibly. While the Kerala Court order is all about privacy, here it is a matter of safety of residents.