Impractical to monitor toddy production: Tamil Nadu government

MADURAI: Stating that every palm tree is an individual production unit and that it is impractical to monitor production from each tree, the Tamil Nadu government informed the court that adulteration could occur at any stage from tapping to sale at toddy shops.

In its counter-affidavit filed before a division bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and R Sakthivel, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai, argued that the manufacture of Indian-made foreign liquor (IMFL), confined to a limited number of licensed manufacturing units, could be closely monitored.

The Tamil Nadu Government has promulgated various rules under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, permitting the manufacture, stocking, distribution, sale and consumption of IMFL, beer, etc., as their manufacturing units are capable of being monitored. On the contrary, no such rules have been framed for the manufacture, retail and consumption of fermented toddy, as adulteration could occur at any stage.

“There is no discriminatory approach; rather, the differential treatment rests on an intelligible differentia — monitorability and public health risk,” said the deputy secretary, adding that though toddy has a low alcohol strength, it is adulterated with substances such as chloral hydrate and Datura (Atropine) to increase its intoxicating effect.

It is against this background that the government subsequently banned toddy tapping, while retaining the manufacture and sale of IMFL by licensed manufacturers.

However, the government has permitted tappers to freely tap Neera/Pathaneer in the case of coconut and Padani in the case of palm trees. These can be sold without further conversion and are marketed through the Tamil Nadu Palm Products Development Board.

Countering the petitioner’s argument seeking removal of the ban on toddy by citing toddy regulations in Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Goa and Puducherry, the deputy secretary said the States had adopted approaches suited to their respective circumstances and public health concerns.

The government also pointed out various welfare measures implemented for palm tappers, including issuing licences for tapping Neera to 1,495 persons during 2025-26, and providing training and financial support through the Palm Development Board.

The State rejected the allegation that Palmyra trees were being neglected. It said palm saplings had been planted across approximately 120 hectares in coastal districts, along with other coastal species, and that mangrove restoration had covered approximately 700 hectares.

The state government relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1995) and an earlier Madras High Court judgment that upheld the State’s position on prohibition.

Hence, it requested the court to dismiss the PIL filed by advocate Theeran Thirumurugan alias Thirumurugan of Ramanathapuram. The petitioner had also sought a direction to the State Government to formulate an appropriate policy permitting the regulated tapping, manufacture, transportation and sale of natural palmyra and coconut toddy in Tamil Nadu in accordance with law.

The court, however, granted two weeks for the government to present its arguments.