The Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold till September 30 the Kerala Government’s decision to close down bars in non-5 Star hotels. The order was passed to facilitate bar owners to pursue their legal battle in Kerala High Court against the Government’s decision to cancel bar licences effective from Thursday.
The aggrieved hotel owners had approached the apex court after being denied interim protection by the Kerala High Court. With their matters still pending in HC, the Bench of Justices AR Dave and UU lalit asked lawyers appearing for both sides to cooperate with the HC single judge to decide the matter “as expeditiously as possible”.
The petitioners had questioned the discriminatory decision of the State to restrain them from selling liquor while permitting free flow of liquor at 5-Star hotels, clubs and retail shops. This prompted even the apex court to question the logic of the State to apply the ban on one set of hotels while sparing the rest.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal representing Kerala justified the decision arguing it was aimed at weaning away youngsters of their drinking habit. “Kerala is the maximum liquor consuming State and this has caused a social problem. Most lower middle class families go to bars,” Sibal submitted.
The logic did not appeal to the Bench. It said: “If it’s a social problem, stop everybody. If you really feel it’s a bad thing, ban it totally across the State like Gujarat has done. Its better that way as there (Gujarat) nobody can have it.”
Sibal argued that the policy ultimately aimed to phase out liquor from the State in ten years. “We have to implement the policy some day. But the social problem is of the youth,” he said.
The SC said the best way out was to educate the people. “Do you mean to say that liquor will be available (to youth) nowhere except in 5-Star hotels,” said the Bench.
lawyers for the petitioners pointed out that people will resort to drinking in open spaces or take to substitutes. In Gujarat, Pudin Hara with its high alcohol content and cough syrup Benadryl had became popular.
The Bench felt that this policy created an artificial divide between the rich and the poor. “If I have more money I can afford to go to a 5-Star hotel but a poor drinker cannot go to a bar,” the Bench said, adding, “ They are running their business for the past 26 years. Overnight you want them to go. Why do you want to stop them abruptlyIJ”
Sibal said that in case, the owners won the legal battle in the court, licences will be restored or else, they would be refunded.