SC issues notice on petition for age checks at bars and liquor stores

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre in response to a petition calling for mandatory age verification at liquor outlets to prevent underage drinking and accidents

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice to the government, requesting a response to a petition that called for age verification at liquor stores and bars. The petition, citing multiple cases of minors being involved in drink-driving incidents nationwide, sought the court’s intervention to enforce a mandatory age verification system at alcohol-selling establishments.

 

Filed by the Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD), the public interest litigation (PIL) urged the implementation of a comprehensive policy requiring age verification at all points of alcohol sale. The petition recommended that photo identification cards of customers who appear under 25 years old be checked, as the legal drinking age in various states and Union Territories (UTs) ranges between 18 and 25. It further proposed a fine of Rs 10,000 for underage buyers.

 

 

The PIL stated, “To make it convenient to implement this law, photo identity cards of any buyer/ consumer who appears to be at the age below 25 years should be checked since the legal drinking age in many states and UT’s is between 18-25 years.”

 

The petition also objected to home delivery of alcohol, arguing that it could encourage underage drinking. It suggested that violations by sellers should be treated as breaches of licensing laws, with penalties of up to Rs 50,000.

 

Highlighting the lack of a clear legal framework for age verification, the petition argued that this gap has led to several fatal accidents involving minors driving under the influence.

 

A bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan initially noted that the court’s role in this matter might be limited. Justice Gavai asked, “What can we do? Instead of going directly to buy, they can send their servants to buy.”

 

However, after the petitioner’s counsel pointed out the stringent measures in place in other countries and proposed potential solutions, the bench decided to issue a notice.

 

(With agency inputs)