Discuss the five structural 'evils' associated with prohibition as identified by the judiciary. Suggest an alternative regulatory framework for alcohol control in India.

Prohibition draws its moral sanction from Article 47, a non-justiciable Directive Principle urging the State to endeavour to prohibit intoxicating drinks [2]. Yet in Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (2026 INSC 1009), the Supreme Court observed that forced temperance is no solution to alcoholism, identifying five structural evils of a blanket ban [1].

The five structural 'evils'

• Loss of tax revenue — excise on liquor, kept outside GST, is a major own-source revenue for States; a ban surrenders it [1].
• Enforcement expenditure — sealing borders and policing bootlegging imposes recurring fiscal and manpower costs [1].
• Corruption in police and excise — a lucrative illegal market breeds rent-seeking within the very agencies meant to enforce the ban [1].
• Illegal distilling — demand shifts to spurious, methanol-laced laththa; Gujarat, dry since 1960, has still seen at least ten major hooch tragedies and over 600 deaths [1].
• Resultant drug menace — suppressed alcohol demand migrates to narcotics and psychotropic substitutes [1].

Collateral institutional costs

• Bihar's prohibition law generated over 45,000 FIRs annually (2018–2020), with pending trials nearly quadrupling, forcing the 2022 amendment to fine first-time offenders and make offences compoundable [4].
• The burden falls hardest on poor consumers priced out of regulated liquor — a public health, not merely a law-and-order, failure [1].

An alternative framework

• Price, not prohibition: raise excise regularly, as WHO's SAFER initiative ranks alcohol taxation a "best buy" [3].
• Minimum unit price to curb ultra-cheap liquor, most effective against heavy drinkers [3].
• Tax stamps and supply-chain tracking of methanol from the industrial source, since denaturing at a single sale counter failed [3][1].
• Demand-side action: de-addiction, marketing curbs, and community awareness.

Regulation, not abstinence by decree, better serves Article 47's public health mandate. States may combine graded taxation, price floors and rigorous methanol tracking with treatment services — converting a criminal justice problem into a governed market that protects the poorest drinker while funding welfare.