The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the Haryana government's decision to allow liquor sales in Gurugram and Faridabad beyond midnight, highlighting the potential implications for Indian society and culture.
The court emphasised that unrestricted nightlife and excessive drinking remain social taboos in India.
“if the people are allowed to stay all night at bars and pubs, the social strain of Indian society is seriously hampered. Excess drinking and indulging in night life in Indian society is still a social taboo…A balance has to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the State,” the court stated, urging the Haryana government to consider its observations while framing future excise policies.
The division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisht, raised these observations while dismissing a petition challenging the Haryana Excise Policy 2024-25.
The policy restricts bars and pubs in districts outside Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond midnight. The petitioners, license holders in Panchkula, sought an extension of their operating hours.
The petitioners argued that the policy subjected them to unfair treatment compared to their counterparts in Gurugram and Faridabad. They highlighted that while the license fee in Panchkula and Faridabad is ₹12 lakh, it is ₹15 lakh in Gurugram, with an additional ₹20 lakh annual fee required to extend liquor sale hours until 2:00 AM. They contended that this disparity and the restricted operating hours in Panchkula were discriminatory and adversely impacted their businesses.
They sought to have Clause 9.8.8 quashed and called for equal treatment of all L-4 and L-5 license holders in Panchkula, allowing them to extend operating hours similar to those in Gurugram and Faridabad, in line with the principle of equal protection under the law.
In response, the state, represented by Additional Advocate General (Haryana) Sharan Sethi, defended the policy. The state argued that the restrictions were formulated after careful deliberations by the Council of Ministers and were within its powers to regulate excise policies. It maintained that no constitutional rights had been violated and that the time restrictions fell under the state's discretion.
Additionally, the state asserted that the petitioners' allegations of discrimination lacked merit, emphasizing that variations in licensing and operating hours across districts reflected the policy's flexibility.
Highlighting that Article 14 of the Constitution formulates class legislation, the court noted : “the excise policy deals differently for different licenses for different districts in the State of Haryana. The license holders of L-4 and L-5 of Districts of Faridabad and Gurugram and for that matter other districts including Panchkula cannot be said to be similarly situated nor it can be said that they are a singular class qua excise policy.”
The court dismissed the petitioners' claims, referencing Supreme Court precedents, including Khoday Distilleries Limited and others vs State of Karnataka and others (1995). It reiterated the legal principle that the right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right and that the state holds exclusive authority to regulate and control the liquor trade.
In response to the petitioners' allegations of unfair treatment, the court noted that license holders in Gurugram and Faridabad operate under distinct conditions and pay higher fees. “No one has stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative,” the court remarked.
The court further observed that most Indian states enforce strict time schedules for liquor sales, with some imposing complete prohibition. It criticized Haryana's policy of allowing bars and pubs in specific districts to operate throughout the night for an additional fee, questioning the rationale behind such exceptions.
“While few of the States of India have applied absolute prohibition and most of the States have laid down a time schedule for selling of liquor. Once a time schedule is laid down, there should be no provision for granting extension of the said time for the entire night by taking extra money,” the court observed.
Cause Title: DA Bodega Hospitality and others v State of Haryana and others
CWP No. 16332 of 2024 (O&M)
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy