Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised concerns over the Haryana government’s decision to permit liquor sales beyond midnight in Gurugram and Faridabad, citing its potential impact on 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 made these observations while dismissing a petition challenging provisions of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024-25 which restricts bars and pubs in districts outside Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond 12:00 midnight. The petitioners, license holders in Panchkula, had sought to extend their operating hours.

The petitioners argued that they were being treated unfairly compared to license holders in Gurugram and Faridabad, highlighting that while the license fees for Panchkula and Faridabad were ₹12 lakh, the fee for Gurugram was ₹15 lakh, with an additional ₹20 lakh per annum fee for extending liquor sale hours until 2:00 AM. The petitioners contended that this differential treatment and the limitation on their operating hours was discriminatory and detrimental to their business. The petitioners called for the quashing of Clause 9.8.8 and for all L-4 and L-5 license holders in Panchkula, who wish to extend their operating hours, to be treated equally to those in Gurugram and Faridabad, in line with the principle of equal protection under the law.

Opposing the petition, the State, represented by Additional Advocate General (Haryana) Sharan Sethi, contended that the decision to limit hours for certain districts had been made after deliberations by the State's Council of Ministers and was within the state's powers to regulate excise policies. The State maintained that there had been no violation of constitutional rights and that the time restrictions were within the State's discretion to implement. The State also argued that the petitioners' claim of discrimination did not hold, as differences in licensing and timing for different districts were part of 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, relying on precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in several cases, including Khoday Distilleries Limited and others vs State of Karnataka and others (1995), and citing established legal principles that the right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right and that the state has the exclusive right to regulate and control the liquor trade.

Addressing the claim of unfair treatment, the court clarified that license holders in Gurugram and Faridabad operate under different 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 said.

The Court highlighted that most Indian states have strict time schedules for liquor sales, with some enforcing absolute prohibition. It criticised Haryana’s policy of allowing bars and pubs to operate all night in certain districts for an additional fee. “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.

However, the court refrained from examining the policy decision, emphasising the discretion of the state in such matters. “It is fairly stated that while the reasons may not be mentioned in the order, however, there has been detailed deliberations by the Ministers under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Minister, therefore, there is no interference warranted,” stated the court.

 

Cause Title: DA Bodega Hospitality and others v State of Haryana and others [CWP No. 16332 of 2024 (O&M)]