The recent controversies surrounding the enforcement of the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act have once again exposed the credibility of the rule of law.
The recent controversies surrounding the enforcement of the Nagaland Liquor Total Prohibition (NLTP) Act have once again exposed a deeper concern: the credibility of the rule of law itself. Laws derive their legitimacy not merely from being enacted but from being enforced impartially, transparently, and consistently. When enforcement appears selective, public confidence in institutions erodes, and justice becomes a matter of perception rather than principle.
Whether the subject of enforcement is a prominent hotel, a licensed establishment, a neighbourhood restaurant, or a small roadside vendor, the standard must remain the same. The law cannot afford to distinguish between the influential and the ordinary. Justice loses its moral authority the moment it becomes selective.
Selective Enforcement is an Assault on the Rule of Law
The greatest danger to any legal system is not merely the violation of law but the unequal application of it. Selective raids, arbitrary inspections, and disproportionate targeting of particular businesses create the impression that enforcement is driven by convenience rather than justice.
Small entrepreneurs, already burdened by limited resources and regulatory complexities, often become the easiest targets. Meanwhile, those with economic influence or political connections frequently appear beyond the reach of scrutiny. Such disparities breed resentment, discourage legitimate enterprise, and create fertile ground for corruption. Businesses begin to believe that compliance alone is insufficient. A law enforced unequally ceases to command respect. It merely commands fear.
Professionalism Must Replace Arbitrary Enforcement
Effective enforcement is not measured by the number of raids conducted but by the integrity of the process. Every enforcement action must be guided by established legal procedures rather than discretionary impulses.
The government should institutionalise uniform inspection protocols, ensuring that identical violations receive identical treatment regardless of who commits them. Raids, searches, seizures, and prosecutions must strictly adhere to due process, with proper authorisation, transparent documentation, and meaningful opportunities for legal redress.
Equally important is accountability within the enforcement machinery itself. Officials found guilty of abuse of authority, selective targeting, or procedural misconduct should face disciplinary and legal consequences. Public confidence can only be restored when accountability operates both upward and downward within the system.
Stop Illegal Supply at Its Source
The persistence of illicit liquor is not primarily the consequence of retail activity; it is the result of weak control over supply chains. Illegal consignments enter the state because enforcement at strategic entry points remains inadequate.
The solution lies in strengthening intelligence-led surveillance rather than conducting sporadic and highly publicised raids on small businesses. Border checkpoints, transport corridors, and vulnerable entry routes should be equipped with modern surveillance technologies, digital record systems, vehicle tracking mechanisms, and coordinated intelligence sharing among the police, excise, customs, and transport authorities.
A strategic approach that disrupts illegal supply networks is both more effective and more equitable than selectively penalising retailers after contraband has already entered the market.
Time for an Honest Conversation on Reform
After decades of prohibition, an uncomfortable but unavoidable question demands serious public reflection: has the present framework achieved its intended objectives?
If prohibition continues to coexist with widespread illegal availability, thriving black markets, revenue losses, and uneven enforcement, then policymakers have a responsibility to evaluate whether regulated legalisation deserves thoughtful consideration.
A carefully regulated system could generate substantial public revenue through licensing and taxation while strengthening consumer safety through quality standards, age restrictions, and regulated distribution. More importantly, bringing commerce into the legal economy would weaken organised illicit networks that currently flourish under prohibition.
Legalisation should never be mistaken for unrestricted availability. It is, rather, the replacement of an ineffective prohibition model with a transparent regulatory framework that balances public health, economic realities, and effective governance.
Policy Must Remain Free from Undue Influence
Public policy must be shaped by constitutional principles, evidence, and the welfare of the people but not by political expediency, private lobbying, or external pressure.
Enforcement agencies should operate with professional independence, insulated from partisan interests. Significant policy decisions should be accompanied by transparent reasoning and informed public consultation. Independent judicial and administrative oversight should remain available to prevent misuse of authority and safeguard institutional integrity.
A government earns public trust not through forceful enforcement but through fair and accountable governance.
In a nutshell
The debate surrounding the NLTP Act extends far beyond liquor regulation. At its core, it concerns the integrity of governance itself.
If the Act is to remain in force, it must be enforced uniformly, professionally, and without fear or favour. Selective victimisation is incompatible with constitutional governance and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
At the same time, policymakers must possess the courage to evaluate whether existing approaches remain effective in today's realities. Strengthening border enforcement, ensuring due process, holding public officials accountable and engaging in an honest discussion on regulatory reform are not contradictory objectives but are complementary pillars of good governance.
The true strength of the rule of law lies not in the severity of punishment but in the fairness of its application. Justice that is impartial commands respect; justice that is selective invites distrust. Nagaland deserves a legal framework that protects public welfare while upholding the principles of equality, transparency, and sound governance.
Dr. N. Yanpothung Ezung
BBC, Wokha