Delhi High Court: Government to Make Liquor Selling Policy On an Urgent Basis

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

On May 11, The Delhi High Court rejected several clubbed petitions. These petitions were concerned with the overcrowding at liquor shops during the pandemic. The High Court refused to interfere and pass any order. It directed the Centre and State Government to make a suitable policy. 

Reliefs sought by the Petitioners

  1. Give directions to the Delhi Government to immediately stop the sale of liquor in the Capital.
  2. To direct the respondents to follow social distancing if the sale is allowed.
  3. To mandate the Delhi Government to allow online sale/home delivery of liquor.

One of these petitions asked for a complete ban on the sale of liquor. Considering the huge share in state revenue from the sale of alcohol, others did not ask for a complete ban. The petitioners agreed that Liquor sales formed a bulk of revenue during the pandemic.

Petitioner’s Arguments 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only solution to overcrowding was the online sale of liquor. He asked the Court to direct the Government to make appropriate rules. He compared the sale of alcohol to the sale of food by home delivery. 

Suggestions by the Petitioners: 

  1. Documents like proof of Identity and age should be used for delivery. This record can be maintained by the government or agents.
  2. Packaging of alcohol to display a warning, legal drinking age, and help lines for domestic violence.
  3. Limit on the quantity of alcohol deliverable.
  4. Only licensed vendors to be allowed delivery to prevent adulteration.
  5. To allow licensed hotels and restaurants to also supply liquor by home delivery.
  6. Fixed timing for sale and distribution of liquor.
  7. Timing to be framed keeping in mind the safety of delivery persons and possible domestic violence.
  8. Record of all persons in contact with the delivery boy to be kept. This can help in tracing if needed.

Respondent’s Arguments 

The counsel for the Union of India contended that another writ petition Guruswamy Nataraj Vs. Union of India sought the same reliefs. Here, it was denied in the Supreme Court, and had left the decision to State Government. Furthermore, he argued that this petition was not maintainable as it was based on the same grounds.

The counsel submitted that there were various restrictions for the sale of liquor in Delhi. Furthermore, many licensed vendors both government and private were not open. Moreover, he read out various instructions issued to liquor vendors to ensure social distancing, if open. In these instructions, it divides people with and without e-tokens into separate lines. The counsel submitted that the rules currently framed under the Excise Act were in force. Hence, these rules do not permit the online sale of liquor. 

Court’s Decision

The two-judge bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai and Justice Sangita Dhingra refused to issue the directionsThe Bench said that the Courts cannot decide matters relating to the Executive. Furthermore, the Court praised the Government’s decision.

The Court disposed of all the petitions without granting relief. However, it asked the State and the Centre Government to form policies at the earliest. Additionally, it asked the Government to keep in mind all suggestions to avoid further damage.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -