Explainer: What you need to know about HC’s observations on all-night liquor sales 

Nocturnal boozers have little reason to say cheers, as the Punjab and Haryana High Court has placed Haryana’s policy—allowing all-night liquor sales in two major NCR districts—on the rocks. The Bench cautioned that permitting unrestricted liquor sales throughout the night could lead to social decay and harm the cultural fabric. It further noted that excessive drinking remained socially unacceptable, and achieving a mature understanding of its repercussions was still a long-term goal. The sobering call by the Division Bench is being widely seen as pouring cold water on Haryana’s policy.

Advertisement

Why did the court step in?

The decision came as the Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth dismissed a petition challenging a clause prohibiting bars and pubs from operating beyond midnight in all districts except Gurugram and Faridabad. The petitioners had sought extended operating hours. The court took into consideration the legal aspects, while dismissing the plea. Before parting with the judgment, the Bench made clear its firm stance on preserving societal values over financial interests.

What are the court’s key observations?

The court asserted allowing liquor sales throughout the night could strain Indian society’s cultural framework and deepen existing social taboos. In its judgment, the Bench observed, “If 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 nightlife in Indian society is still a social taboo.”

It further clarified that this stance should not be understood as discouraging nightlife but rather guide policymakers to consider cultural sensitivities, literacy rates, and the need for a nuanced approach when drafting excise policies.

How does this affect excise policy?

The Bench criticised the inconsistency in excise policies across States, noting that while some enforce absolute prohibition, others impose time restrictions. The court asserted, “A balance has to be struck between the amount of revenue being earned vis-à-vis maintaining and nurturing the culture of the State. It is expected that the State shall take into consideration our observations while framing the future excise policy.”

The ruling serves as a directive for Haryana, and other States, to rethink its approach and ensure cultural preservation without undermining economic considerations.

What about businesses?

The court rejected the petitioners’ challenge to the policy, pointing out that they had accepted licenses under its current terms and could not selectively oppose aspects they found unfavourable. The Bench upheld the principle of “take it or leave it,” stating, “No one has stopped the petitioners from doing business in Gurugram if they found it to be more lucrative.”

What is the larger impact?

The judgment is significant as it refers to the importance of cultural sensitivity in governance. By placing societal values above financial gains, the high court has sent a strong message to States crafting excise policies. The decision also focuses on the broader need for uniformity and responsibility in regulating alcohol consumption, setting a benchmark for similar cases across the country.