Govt in bind on eve of Supreme Court verdict

Sources said there was no scope for a review or reference to a larger bench since there were no constitutional issues involved. However, they felt the court may not overturn the Kerala decision as it was strictly a policy matter, aimed at fighting growing alcoholism. They pointed out that courts had refused to interfere with States’ policies.

Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh are scheduled to pronounce the verdict on a special leave petition filed by bar owners from Kerala, challenging the High Court’s verdict, upholding the policy to deny liquor licence to non-five star category of hotels.

But if the apex court endorses the HC verdict, the Oommen Chandy government could take it for vindication of its controversial policy and work towards making Kerala liquor-free by 2024, though many consider this utopian since prohibition is more observed in breach.

The UDF decided to go in for the controversial abkari policy on August 27, 2014, which was approved by the government the very next day. It is no secret that it was the outcome of ego clash between KCPP president V. M. Sudheeran and Chief Minister Oommen Chandy.

Mr Sudheeran was against renewing licences to 418 bars, found substandard by the court. Chandy sought to outsmart him by clamping a near-total ban on bar hotels. More than 700 hotels had to close shop and the only relief they got was to convert hotels into beer and wine parlours.

While hearing senior counsel Kapil Sibal’s justification of the Kerala policy, the SC had queried about loopholes in the new liquor policy to confine liquor licences to just 26 five star hotels.

“We are told that liquor is still easily available in beverage shops. Mini refrigerators and mini bars in hotel rooms fall within the state’s tourism policy. What makes you think that liquor prohibition in Kerala will be successful? Also, why should we try a policy that has failed over and over again across various states?"

Mr Sibal replied that the government could determine the category of hotels, where foreign liquor could be served.

Discrimination would be applicable only if any five star hotel alleged that it had been denied bar licence, while others of the same stature enjoyed its benefits.

The bench replied it could not ask the government to give out licences to a particular category of hotels. “We can only strike down the policy or uphold it,” the bench observed.