Supreme Court today approved Kerala government's new liquor policy allowing the issuance of bar licenses only to five star hotels, saying the state had a "dubious distinction" of having 14 per cent of the national consumption of alcohol and there was no "illegality or irrationality" in the intent of the state to clamp down on public consumption of alcohol.
In a significant judgement, the court said it did not find any reason or justification in accepting the appeals of Kerala bar hotels association and others which also included Two Star, Three Star, Four Star and Heritage hotels of the state challenging the policy.
While noting that Kerala holds a "dubious distinction" of accounting for 14 per cent of the national consumption of alcohol in a comparatively territorially small state which boasts of 100 per cent literacy, the court touched upon the societal implication of the free trade in alcohol.
"Placing a moratorium on all hotels other than Five Star hotels, therefore, is not a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution," a bench comprising Justices Vikramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh said.
"We find no illegality or irrationality with the intention of the state to clamp down on public consumption of alcohol," it said.
The bench upheld the verdict of the division bench of the Kerala High Court which had given a green signal to the new liquor policy by noting that the object of the policy is the reduction of consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places and the protection of the youth from the adverse consequences of alcohol consumption.
However, the apex court took note of the fact that thousands of workers at bars have been rendered unemployed as a result of the new policy leading to over a dozen suicides, and said since the state has imposed a five per cent cess on liquor sold in such shops for the purpose of rehabilitation of these workers that must be mobilised and properly implemented.
"If this is indeed the case (non-mobilisation of cess), the High Court may be approached to address this grievance. It does not affect the legality of the policy impugned before us, but there is no doubt that these workers do have a right to be rehabilitated.
"The state may be sanguine in its assessment of the success of the impugned policy, but it must be given a chance to combat the rise in alcohol," the bench said.
