Madras HC seeks Tamil Nadu's reply on plea to allow toddy tapping

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Friday directed the State government to file its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of the prohibition on palmyra and coconut toddy tapping.

A Division Bench comprising Justices CV Karthikeyan and S Sakthivel issued the direction on a PIL filed by advocate Thirumurugan from Ramanathapuram. The petitioner also sought a direction to the State government to formulate an appropriate policy permitting the regulated tapping, manufacture, transportation and sale of palmyra and coconut toddy.

Stating that the State itself regulates and markets Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), beer, and other alcoholic beverages through statutory mechanisms, the petitioner contended that the government should objectively examine whether a similar regulatory model could be devised for toddy, rather than continuing an absolute prohibition without reconsideration.

The petitioner further submitted that several neighbouring states, including Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Goa and the Union Territory of Puducherry, permit the tapping and sale of toddy under statutory licensing systems administered by their respective Excise Departments. These states have demonstrated that regulation, rather than total prohibition, can balance public health, revenue generation, environmental protection, and traditional livelihoods, he said.

He further submitted that successive governments in Kerala have consistently supported regulated toddy tapping as an important source of rural employment and have protected the occupation through statutory regulation.

The petitioner also submitted that, during the pre-Independence period and thereafter, the government gradually introduced prohibition measures to discourage excessive consumption of intoxicating liquor. However, he argued that today scientific testing, food safety regulations, digital monitoring, laboratory certification, licensing systems, GPS tracking, quality control measures and strict excise supervision are available.

Therefore, he contended that absolute prohibition is no longer the only available policy option. As his representations to the authorities elicited no positive response, he approached the High Court seeking appropriate relief.