By 
The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the Union government’s failure to appear in a hearing, even though it had been served notice. The hearing was on a plea asking for a compulsory age check at liquor outlets across the country.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan, and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh also heard a connected plea by the same petitioner against alcohol sold in packaging that looks like fruit.
Packaging Plea Background:
In May, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government and State excise departments. This was on a non profit group Community Against Drunken Driving’s (CADD) plea to ban alcohol sold in packaging that does not look like alcohol, including tetra packs and sachets. The CJI had said at the time:
“This is very deceptive. Notice issued.”
About the Petitioner and the Plea:
The plea was filed by CADD. It asks the Court to order a compulsory age check system at liquor shops, bars, pubs, and restaurants. The aim is to stop underage drinking and reduce drunk driving. The group points out that there is no single method for checking the age of people who buy alcohol.
Centre’s Non Appearance:
The Bench noted that no lawyer appeared for the Central government, even though notice was served. Justice Nath said:
“Respondent 1 (the Union Government) notice is served. No one is appearing for the Union. It is an important issue. They don’t take you seriously?”
The petitioner’s lawyer replied:
“They are not taking the matter seriously.”
The Court gave the Union government four weeks to file its reply. It also said it would request Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to appear in the matter. The petitioner was told to send a copy of the order to the Solicitor General’s office. The matter will be heard next after six weeks.
Age Check Arguments:
The petitioner’s lawyer said a single rule was needed because the legal minimum age to buy alcohol is different in different States. He asked the Union government to bring the age check method used at the point of sale into line across the country:
“There should be a protocol mandate for age verification at the first point of sale all over India because you have eight States with minimum age requirement as 25 years, 18 years. All over basically different ages.”
Fruit Packaging Plea:
The Court also heard a connected plea by CADD. It says alcoholic drinks are being sold in packs full of fruit pictures, with the alcohol content barely shown. The group says this appeals to young people and minors. Advocate Vipin Nair appeared for the petitioner.
Nair showed the Bench a pack described as “chilli mango vodka.” He said the fruit pictures were shown prominently, while the word “vodka” was printed in a way that was hard to notice:
“They sell alcohol in fruit-shaped packs and call it chilli mango vodka. They put the vodka part low. No warning is required in this. It is unbelievable how they are allowed to be sold like this.”
He also pointed out that alcoholic drinks do not carry legal warnings like the ones required for tobacco products. He asked the Court to request an Additional Solicitor General to appear for the Union, since a uniform approach was needed.
Union and States:
The Bench talked about the role of the Union along with that of the States, noting that alcohol is a State subject. Nair replied that the Union was still a key respondent and that the Union and the States needed to work together.
Tetra Pack Makers Join:
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the Tetra Pack Manufacturers Association, asked to be added as a party to the matter, and the Court allowed this. Datar said alcohol was being sold in tetra packs in ten States and Union Territories.
Notice to States:
The Bench noted that several States had not yet appeared and directed that they be served through their Standing Counsels. Justice Nath said:
“States ko kaise serve nai horra h, notice. Serve them through the Standing Counsels.” (How is the notice not getting served on the States? Serve them through the Standing Counsels.)
Timeline for Replies:
The Court gave the Union of India four weeks to file its counter affidavit in this plea. It told the other respondents to file their counter affidavits within the same time. The petitioner was given two more weeks after that to file a rejoinder.
Case Details: Community Against Drunken Driving v. Union of India and Ors. (Diary Number: 29463 of 2024)
