Date:14.07.

2015

PMK Founder Dr. S. Ramadoss Statement

REMOVE AG FROM THE COMMITTEE

TO DECIDE ON CLOSURE OF LIQUOR SHOPS
The Attorney General of the Government of India, Mukul Rohatgi yesterday argued for the Kerala Bar
Owners Association in the appeal case against closure of bars in Kerala. It is condemnable that the
chief advocate of the government of India had argued for the bar owners association.
The state and central government chief advocates are not prohibited from pleading cases for private
individuals. Since it is not right on moral grounds it had become a convention in the last 50 years that
government pleaders do not argue for private individuals. In 2010 the then Advocate General of Tamil
Nadu, Mr. C. S. Raman argued for the accused in the lottery scam case in the Kerala high court. Kerala
government vehemently opposed that. The then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Kalaignar intervened
and announced that Raman would not argue the case and the controversy was ended. It is a
contradiction that Mukul Rohatgi who has to stand by the conscience of the people argued against
public welfare.
It may have been acceptable if he argued in a case for the welfare of the people but it is totally
unacceptable that he stood in the court to support a social evil, i.e. liquor bars. Since he is vested with
the responsibility of taking a decision on liquor shops his credibility had become questionable. The
case for closure of liquor shops along the National and State Highways in Tamil Nadu, Puducherry,
Punjab and Haryana is under trial in the Supreme Court. The bench headed by Justice Kehar that is
hearing the case had opined that the liquor shops needed to be closed and ordered the AG on the 12th
of January to convene a meeting of Central and State representatives to draft a new liquor policy.
As per the Supreme Court order Rohatgi should have submitted the governments policy on closure
of liquor shops along state and national highways by the 17th of February 2015. 6 months after the
deadline Rohatgi is yet to submit the new policy. In the meeting conveyed by him to discuss the
policy, Lawyers Forum for Social Justice who filed the case for closure of liquor shops along the national
highways in the first instance was not called. Instead owners of liquor manufacturing companies were
invited. This is contradictory and condemnable. Whenever the case comes for hearing in the Supreme

Date:
Court he has made it a habit to avoid coming to the court citing some or other reasons. This had
caused undue delay in closing down the liquor shops along the national and state highways.
His arguments were in favour of the liquors shops in the case for closure of liquor shops along state
and national highways. Whereas the fact is that liquor shops were opened alongside the national
highways, he had argued that the national highways are running through commercial areas where
there are liquor shops and hence it is not possible to close down the liquor shops. In this circumstances
his stand to argue for Kerala bar owners association confirms the doubts and fears about his integrity.
In this situation giving the responsibility of taking a decision on closure of liquor shops alongside
national and state highways to Rohatgi is like keeping a cat to protect milk. Hence he should be
immediately relived from this responsibility as the representative of the Union government. The
Government of India should request the court to appoint an alternative when the case comes for
hearing in this month end. The Government should take an early decision on closure of liquor shops
along state and national highways.

Yours,

(Dr. S.Ramadoss)