Read Time: 06 minutes

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to direct the Delhi Government to prohibit/control the production, consumption and distribution of liquor in the State of Delhi. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramaniam Prasad dismissed the petition stating that rules governing the production, distribution and sale of liquor are already in place, namely, the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22.

"First find out whether you are factually correct or not... Delhi Excise Rules are already in place to govern the sale and consumption of alcohol in Delhi", remarked Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. 

The petitioner argued that liquor shops had been opened by the Delhi Government near schools, hospitals and religious places of worship and that the Delhi Government had made the city the "Liquor Capital of India". He further argued that the state government was already under massive debt of the centre, as the ruling party in Delhi has regularly promised freebies and is suffering a financial crisis. 

However, the court dismissed his contention saying that wasn't the case. “Please don't make a wild statement. The statute provides that a shop has to be 100 meters away from a school/hospital. Show us that a liquor shop has been opened near a hospital or a school, and we will take action”, remarked Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. 

The petitioner prayed for directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi to either completely prohibit or control the production, distribution, consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs. Alternatively, he prayed the court to direct a "Health Impact Assessment" and "Environment Impact Assessment" of the consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs. 

The petitioner also prayed for directions to the government to publish "Health Warning" on liquor bottles and drinks. However, the court dismissed the said prayer by saying that a health warning is already published on all alcohol bottles in Delhi. 

"Yes milords, but the print on the bottle is very small and is not easily readable", argued the petitioner. "You may want the warning to be printed in a certain size but it is there in the rules.. it can't be argued that because I feel that it should be written in bold, so it should be written in bold", remarked Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The Petitioner also sought to argue that Article 47 of the Constitution of India enjoines upon the state a duty to maintain and improve public health and the control and prohibition of alcohol goes a long way in doing so. However, the court while negativing the submissions of the petitioner stated that no reason for the court's interference was made out from the pleadings of the plea. 

Case Title:- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India