​Drinking to death: on illicit liquor cases

Often described in media reports as “hooch tragedies” or “spurious liquor cases”, the recurring incidents of illicit alcohol poisoning across India — most recently near Amritsar, Punjab, which claimed at least 23 lives — follow a grimly familiar pattern of poverty, greed, and regulatory failure. Each tragedy is eerily similar to the previous one, be it in terms of the socio-economic profile of the victims or the motivation of the perpetrators. The victims are typically poor, daily wage earners, seeking respite from the harsh realities of everyday drudgery. They are drawn by the lure of cheap alcohol, a vulnerability exploited by bootleggers, who are at the fag end of a long supply chain. These illicit brews often involve dangerous shortcuts, from incorporating toxic substances such as dead scorpions to diluting industrial methanol, a poisonous chemical that is deceptively similar to consumable ethanol. Methanol, easily pilfered and inexpensive, becomes a deadly profit source for bootleggers who may misjudge dilution ratios, leading to fatal consequences. The nexus among bootleggers, the police, and lower-level politicians is often apparent. While police negligence in Punjab has led to suspensions, these events are more about organised methanol theft in which the bootlegger is only the last mile operator. Methanol is not a drink; it is industrial alcohol, an intermediary in the petrochemical industry with extensive downstream use, and is, therefore, not illicit, except as an ingredient in hooch. It is categorised as a Class B poison in many States, but is cheaper than the liquor made biologically, mostly from molasses. After paying for the pilferage from authorised methanol dealers, bootleggers can still make a handsome profit.

Legal proceedings in illicit liquor cases often involve murder and attempted murder charges, besides those under prohibition laws. Yet convictions, as seen in the 2015 Malvani case, can be elusive. A court acquitted 10 of the 14 accused after nine years. None was found guilty of violating the Poison Act. Since methanol production and delivery are inter-State affairs, there is a case for a central framework on methanol transport for preventing such pilferage as well as stringent State regulation. The Poison Act may add teeth to the prosecution’s case. But what is more important is to ensure that the lawmaker-enforcer dyad is incorruptible so that illegal methanol distribution is impossible. Eventually though, it is the sorry economic, social and educational situation of victims that creates a market for unscrupulous agents to make money. This can only be eradicated by tackling poverty, social inequality, and the lack of access to education alongside systemic corruption within law enforcement.