<div>The common element in the response of Nitish Kumar’s government in Bihar to the Patna High Court’s striking down of the prohibition policy, introduced in the state in April, and its attitude towards the state’s notorious criminal-turned-politician Mohammad Shahabuddin is disregard for the law. After the court pronounced the state’s draconian liquor ban unconstitutional, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar decided not just to appeal against the judgment, but notified a more stringent law in its place. While appealing against the ruling is the government’s right, challenging it with a new law which has the same provisions as those struck down by the court, and making it a legislature vs judiciary issue, amount to defiance of the court, and disrespect for the law. The Supreme Court stay of the High Court order does not change this position. Shahabuddin is a terror in the state, especially in Siwan from where he had won elections. The don, who faces over 35 criminal cases on charges including multiple murders and was in jail, got bail last month. The Supreme Court has now cancelled the bail after castigating the state government for the delay in the prosecution of a case which was used by Shahabuddin to secure bail. The court said the government had no interest in preventing him from getting bail.<br /><br />The prohibition policy as implemented in Bihar violated many accepted norms of law. If a person was found drunk or carrying liquor, family members were also held liable and could be punished. Villages faced collective fines if one person violated the law. Guilt by association is not accepted by any civilised law. The problem with the prohibition law was not just that it was illegal. It was impractical too, and did more harm than good. An illicit liquor industry has emerged in the state, at least 16 people died in a hooch tragedy, bootlegging started flourishing and drug abuse is on the rise. Prohibition by law is wrong policy, and its imposition with an iron hand is worse. <br />Nitish Kumar had once claimed that he would restore the rule of law in Bihar. Shahabuddin had been jailed 11 years ago as part of that promise. But the don’s political connections with Lalu Prasad, who is Nitish Kumar’s ally now, may have softened the chief minister’s attitude towards the gangster. The Bihar government did not oppose the cancellation of bail in the Supreme Court after the issue became controversial, but its original role in the bail gave its dubious position away. Every case against Shahabuddin should be pursued with vigil and without favour. It is not late for good sense to prevail in the case of prohibition too.</div>
<div>The common element in the response of Nitish Kumar’s government in Bihar to the Patna High Court’s striking down of the prohibition policy, introduced in the state in April, and its attitude towards the state’s notorious criminal-turned-politician Mohammad Shahabuddin is disregard for the law. After the court pronounced the state’s draconian liquor ban unconstitutional, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar decided not just to appeal against the judgment, but notified a more stringent law in its place. While appealing against the ruling is the government’s right, challenging it with a new law which has the same provisions as those struck down by the court, and making it a legislature vs judiciary issue, amount to defiance of the court, and disrespect for the law. The Supreme Court stay of the High Court order does not change this position. Shahabuddin is a terror in the state, especially in Siwan from where he had won elections. The don, who faces over 35 criminal cases on charges including multiple murders and was in jail, got bail last month. The Supreme Court has now cancelled the bail after castigating the state government for the delay in the prosecution of a case which was used by Shahabuddin to secure bail. The court said the government had no interest in preventing him from getting bail.<br /><br />The prohibition policy as implemented in Bihar violated many accepted norms of law. If a person was found drunk or carrying liquor, family members were also held liable and could be punished. Villages faced collective fines if one person violated the law. Guilt by association is not accepted by any civilised law. The problem with the prohibition law was not just that it was illegal. It was impractical too, and did more harm than good. An illicit liquor industry has emerged in the state, at least 16 people died in a hooch tragedy, bootlegging started flourishing and drug abuse is on the rise. Prohibition by law is wrong policy, and its imposition with an iron hand is worse. <br />Nitish Kumar had once claimed that he would restore the rule of law in Bihar. Shahabuddin had been jailed 11 years ago as part of that promise. But the don’s political connections with Lalu Prasad, who is Nitish Kumar’s ally now, may have softened the chief minister’s attitude towards the gangster. The Bihar government did not oppose the cancellation of bail in the Supreme Court after the issue became controversial, but its original role in the bail gave its dubious position away. Every case against Shahabuddin should be pursued with vigil and without favour. It is not late for good sense to prevail in the case of prohibition too.</div>
