Yadav, the son of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad and Leader of Opposition in the assembly, claimed that JD(U) members are involved in illicit liquor business in Bihar on a large scale.
"The prohibition is a farce," he said. "The JD(U) is heavily dependent for its finances on earnings through illicit liquor."
"As JD(U)'s national president, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar owes an answer to the people of the state...has his government acted against them for flouting prohibition, which he loves to flaunt as his great achievement," Yadav told a press conference.
Yadav's comments followed the death of four persons in Rohtas district after drinking spurious liquor last week, over a year and a half after the state was formally declared dry.
The JD(U) hit back with its chief spokesperson Sanjay Singh saying, "Tejashwi spoke a lot but he should have also spoken about the close ties his party maintains with the sand mafia."
"He also owes an explanation as to how his family has come to own so many plots of land," Singh said in a statement.
"We (RJD) had then supported the move in the interests of the society though it was resulting in a loss of revenue of Rs 5,000 crore. Now we see that illicit liquor has become a thriving business."
Pillorying Kumar, the RJD leader said Kumar has found a "new pet social reform measure" -- dowry-less marriage -- and recently welcomed a teacher from Bhojpur district at his residence who claimed to have said no to dowry.
The JD(U) reacted swiftly by terminating the membership of the leader, whose presence was flagged by Yadav.
The party's state unit president Bashishtha Narayan Singh expelled Rakesh Singh from the primary membership of JD(U) who was allegedly named in a hooch case of 2012.
"It is a shame that a person who is being grilled day in and day out in connection with corruption cases, is trying to take a moral high ground," he said.
Speaking at a function, Kumar, who is also the JD(U) national president, clarified that he had received at his residence a teacher from Bhojpur district who had recently refused to accept dowry for his son's marriage.
He was "unaware" that the person accompanying the old man was associated with his own party.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
