The State government on Tuesday informed the Kerala High Court that the liquor policy was aimed at bringing down liquor consumption in the State gradually.
When the arguments in the bar licence cancellation cases resumed before Justice K. Surendra Mohan, senior Supreme Court lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the government, contended that the policy had the rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the government.
He argued that the government had the power to impose restrictions on liquor trade.
The State government was well within its authority to formulate policy regarding the sale of liquor. The State government could completely prohibit or partially ban the sale. No one could claim that they had the fundamental right to do business in liquor. Mr. Sibal contended that the liquor trade was not an ordinary one and had the potential to cause mischief and even social evil.
Larger interestHe argued that the State was trying to protect the interest of the larger public by limiting the domestic consumption of liquor. In other words, the policy aimed at limiting the choice of the consumers to go to a public place and drink liquor.
The youth and working men were consuming liquor at public places, thereby destroying their future, he pointed out.
Mr. Sibal submitted that the classification of the hotels had been made under the liquor rules. Even the Supreme Court had earlier upheld the government decision, taken long ago, to exclude two star hotels from the purview of liquor trade and held that no discrimination could be alleged.
The classification of the hotels had been made on the basis of quality and the kind of people who used the bars. Therefore, the contention that there was discrimination was misplaced.
Mr. Sibal pointed out that the hoteliers could still run their business.
They had only been restrained from liquor trade. Therefore, it could not be said that their fundamental right had been affected.
