HC deplores decision to reopen Tasmac shops

HC deplores decision to reopen Tasmac shops

Asks Registry to place the case before Chief Justice

12/05/2020, , B. TILAK CHANDAR,MADURAI

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday observed that tipplers in serpentine queues threw caution to the wind, flouted physical distancing and mask norms and thronged Tasmac shops.

A Division Bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and B. Pugalendhi made the observation while hearing the public interest litigation petitions filed by A. Bonyface and C. Selvakumar, challenging the government’s decision to open Tasmac shops when nationwide lockdown was in place in view of COVID-19.

The State was aware that due to the lockdown, the spread of COVID-19 was controlled in Chennai. But, reopening of Koyembedu vegetable market led to a huge spike in positive cases. WHO guidelines clearly warned of an increase in violence under the influence of alcohol during the pandemic, the court said.

The right of the State to carry on liquor sales through Tasmac shops was not an absolute one. When that right sought to trample the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution, the former had to give way, the judges said.

The State could not be permitted to hide behind the cloak of policy decisions when its action was likely to kill people in droves.

The State’s main grievance was that it required revenue to combat the pandemic and Tasmac shops would fill its coffers. The State was aware that people had become penniless due to the lockdown. It was obvious that the little money they had to buy food for the family had gone to Tasmac shops, the judges said.

The court said had the government permitted resumption of small business activities and thereafter opened Tasmac shops, none could have had any grudge. When the government had rightly prohibited entry into places of worship, its decision to allow tipplers to congregate at Tasmac shops was indubitably antithetical.

With the Principal seat having passed orders on similar petitions, the court directed the Registry to place the petitions before the Chief Justice to be dealt with appropriately. The State has preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court against the HC’s order.