Prohibition as a policy has consistently failed to achieve its stated public health objectives in India. Critically examine with reference to recent Supreme Court observations.

Article 47 directs the State to endeavour to prohibit intoxicating drinks injurious to health. Yet in Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (September 2026), the Supreme Court observed that "forced temperance is no solution for alcoholism" [1]. The record largely supports this, though the failure lies in the instrument rather than the intent.

Evidence of failure

• Public health: Gujarat, dry since its formation in 1960, has still witnessed at least ten major hooch tragedies killing over 600 people [1].
• Justice system overload: Bihar's 2016 ban generated roughly 45,000 FIRs annually, with pending trials rising from 31,053 (2018) to 1,14,051 (2020) at under 1% conviction — compelling the 2022 amendment to make offences compoundable and summarily triable [2].
• Fiscal and governance costs: the Court listed five "evils" — excise revenue loss, enforcement expenditure, police-excise corruption, illicit distillation and a resultant drug menace [1].

Why the verdict needs qualification

• The demand for prohibition, historically voiced by poor women, rests on real harm: diversion of household income and domestic violence. Bans do reduce easy availability.
• Mass poisonings have also occurred in Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, where liquor is legally sold [1] — cheap methanol reaching those priced out of legal liquor, not prohibition alone, is the proximate killer.
• Alcohol is a State List subject; outcomes vary with each State's enforcement capacity, so a blanket verdict of "failure" oversimplifies.

What the Court actually decided

• It struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which mandated colourant and bitterant in methanol — a safeguard applied at one sale counter while exempt industrial channels leaked [1].
• Its prohibition remarks are obiter dicta; no State ban stands repealed [1].

Prohibition has therefore failed as an instrument while its objective remains constitutionally sound. The way forward lies in demand management rather than blanket bans — WHO's SAFER initiative identifies alcohol excise taxation as a "best buy", with minimum unit pricing to curb heavy drinking and tax stamps to expose illicit liquor [3]. Regulation that captures revenue for the exchequer, rather than surrendering it to bootleggers, better serves Article 47's health goal.