The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on the sale of liquor in tetra packs in Uttar Pradesh, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach state government authorities instead.
On Thursday, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India addressed a petition challenging Uttar Pradesh’s recent excise policy mandate. The petitioner argued that the transition from glass bottles to tetra packs for country liquor would negatively impact educational environments and contribute to rising crime rates. However, the court maintained that the grievances should first be addressed by the state administration.
The legal challenge follows the Uttar Pradesh government’s approval of a new excise policy designed to modernize liquor distribution. Key features of this policy include the introduction of an e-lottery system for the allocation of ‘bhang’ (cannabis) and liquor shops.
A significant technical shift in the policy is the mandatory packaging of country liquor in tetra packs. Previously sold in glass bottles, the state government justified the switch as a measure to enhance safety, prevent adulteration, and ensure the integrity of the product.
Appearing for the petitioner, Meenakshi Shree Tiwari, advocate Ashok Pande raised concerns regarding the accessibility and social impact of the new packaging. Pande contended that tetra packs are more easily transported and are finding their way into educational institutions, thereby “spoiling the atmosphere” of schools and colleges.
Furthermore, the petitioner linked the ease of sale and consumption facilitated by tetra packs to a potential rise in criminal activities across the state. The PIL sought a judicial intervention to overturn the state’s mandate on tetra pack packaging.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, was not inclined to interfere with the state’s policy decision at this stage.
While refusing to entertain the PIL, the bench disposed of the petition but provided a pathway for the petitioner to seek redressal. The court granted Tiwari the liberty to submit a representation to the relevant Uttar Pradesh state authorities. The bench noted that the state government would be required to consider such a representation and take a formal decision on the grievances raised.
