"Chilli Mango Vodka": Supreme Court Seeks Union's Reply On Plea Against Fruit-Themed Alcohol Packaging
Supreme Court granted the Union of India four weeks to respond to a plea by Community Against Drunken Driving alleging that alcohol is being marketed in fruit-themed packaging that appeals to minors
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted the Union of India four weeks to file its counter-affidavit in a plea by Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD) that alleges alcoholic beverages are being sold in packaging dominated by fruit imagery, with the alcoholic content barely disclosed, in a manner that makes them attractive to young people and minors.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, R. Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh also directed the other respondents to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks, and allowed the petitioner two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder.
Noting that several States had not yet appeared, the Bench directed that they be served through their Standing Counsels.
Advocate Vipin Nair appeared for the petitioner.
Taking the Bench through product packaging bearing the description "chilli mango vodka", counsel for the petitioner argued that the fruit imagery was displayed prominently while the word 'vodka' was printed inconspicuously.
"This is how it is being sold all over the place," Nair submitted, flagging concerns over the manner in which such products are presented to consumers.
He contended that packaging of this kind can disguise the alcoholic nature of the product, particularly for young consumers, and urged the Court to examine how such beverages are being marketed and to address the need to protect minors from exposure to them. Nair also highlighted the absence of statutory warnings on alcoholic beverages comparable to those mandated for tobacco products.
Stressing that age verification is an issue requiring attention at the national level, counsel requested the Court to ask an Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to appear on behalf of the Union, given the importance of the issue and the need for a standardised approach.
The Bench discussed the role of the Union alongside that of the States, noting that alcohol is a State subject.
In response, Nair argued that the Union is a key respondent in the matter and that a coordinated approach between the Union and the States is necessary. He also flagged that several States had not yet appeared in the proceedings, as the Court examined the status of service and of counter-affidavits on record.
Expressing concern over the delay in service, Justice Nath remarked, "States ko kaise serve nai horra h, notice. Serve them through the Standing Counsels."("How is the notice not getting served on the States? Serve them through the Standing Counsels.")
The Court granted the Union of India four weeks to file its counter-affidavit. The other respondents were likewise directed to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks, with the petitioner granted two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder.
Background
In May, the Court had issued notice in a petition seeking a ban on sale of alcohol in "inconspicuous packages" such as tetra packs and sachets. "This is very deceptive. Notice issued," CJI Kant had remarked. It issued notice to the Union as well the excise departments of various State governments on the petition moved by an Community against Drunken Driving.
Advocate Vipin Nair, appearing for the petitioners had told the bench today, "Unlike tobacco, there is no warning. These packs are fruit juices but has vodka with pictures of apples. Chilli mango vodka etc,".
In April 2025, CJI Surya Kant led bench of the Supreme Court had rejected a PIL challenging the availability of Wine in tetra packs in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The bench also comprising Justices Bagchi and Pancholi noted that thestate's policy did not have any express permission of selling liquor in tetra pack in the excise policy. However, some administration decision was taken by state government in February 2025 permitting such small packages of liquor, it further noted.
"The said policy decision is on record. It is not expedient for the court to express any opinion. Since petitioner alleged availability of liquor in tetra packs and is likely to have impact on educational institutions and on the students, we dispose of the plea with liberty to submit the copy of this plea as representation to authorities who may in turn consider the request", the bench had ordered.
In 2025, the Supreme Court had expressed concern over sale of alcohol in tetra packs, noting that their deceptive packaging could give school-going children easy access. Tetra packs containing whiskey for sale were presented before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a trademark dispute.
"Should this even be permitted...it is so easy to carry in schools", Justice Kant had said. Court was hearing a long-standing trademark battle between two liquor giants – M/s. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’ and M/s. John Distillers Ltd., marketing its whiskey under the name ‘ORIGINAL CHOICE’. To give the Court a comparative sense of the competing branding, the original bottles of both products, followed by their tetra pack versions were placed before court respectively.
Both companies have registered their respective trademarks. Challenging the grant of a trademark to the other, both approached the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”) seeking rectification of the mark used by the other. The IPAB, however, vide common order dated March 8, 2013, dismissed both the petitions observing that the two marks were not deceptively similar to each other and were not likely to confuse the public. The Madras High Court, by way of the Impugned order dated November 7, 2025, held that the mark ‘Original Choice’ was in continuous disturbance, and directed rectification thereof.
Case Title: Community against Drunken Driving v. Union of India and Ors.
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, R. Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hearing Date: October 14, 2026