Chandigarh, December 6:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently expressed concerns over Haryana’s excise policy permitting liquor sales beyond midnight in Gurugram and Faridabad. The court emphasized the need for policymakers to account for Indian cultural values and literacy levels, highlighting the societal implications of unrestricted alcohol consumption.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth remarked, “While the Excise Policy mentions of having noticed social verification and social degeneration at the time of framing the policies, it cannot be remained unnoticed that 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.”
The judges clarified that the intention was not to discourage nightlife establishments but urged policymakers to consider Indian societal norms and public maturity while designing such policies. The court also noted that some states have outright bans on alcohol sales, while others strictly regulate operating hours.
“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. 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 bench observed, urging the government to reflect on these points in future excise policies.
The court’s observations came during a hearing on a petition filed by license holders in Panchkula. They challenged the Haryana Excise Policy 2024-25, which restricts bars and pubs in districts other than Gurugram and Faridabad from operating beyond midnight. The petitioners argued that the earlier policy allowed them to remain open until 2:00 AM, with an option to extend operations until 8:00 AM for an additional ₹20 lakh annually.
The petitioners claimed discrimination, pointing out that bars in Gurugram and Faridabad continue to operate under extended hours. However, the court ruled that establishments in different districts are not identical and do not form a single classification under the excise policy.
“The license holders…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 stated. It emphasized that reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution allows differentiation to achieve legislative objectives.
The court also highlighted variations in license fees, noting that licensees in Panchkula and Faridabad pay ₹12 lakh, while those in Gurugram pay ₹15 lakh, and other districts pay ₹5 lakh.
Referring to M/s Darshan Singh & Company, Moga vs. State of Punjab and others [2024 NCPHHC 49641], the court reiterated that liquor trade is not a fundamental right and remains under the state’s jurisdiction. It upheld the principle of “take it or leave it” in such matters, stating, “Where a person wants to do liquor trade, he would have to accept the conditions as framed by the State.” Additionally, the court observed, “No one has stopped the petitioners from doing business at Gurugram, if they found it to be more lucrative.”
About The Author
