The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre and other concerned authorities on a public interest petition seeking an immediate ban on the sale of alcohol in tetra packs and sachet-type packaging. The case has once again brought into focus the policy framework surrounding liquor distribution and its broader social implications.
The petition comes weeks after the apex court had refused to entertain an earlier PIL challenging Uttar Pradesh’s policy allowing country liquor to be sold in tetra packs, advising the petitioner to first approach the state government with representations.
FCRF’s Flagship Cyber Law Certification Returns With a New Four-Week Cohort
The matter was heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi. The court had earlier disposed of the PIL filed by Meenakshi Shree Tiwari, granting her liberty to submit a representation before the competent authorities in Uttar Pradesh.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Ashok Pande argued before the court that liquor sold in tetra packs is reportedly reaching educational institutions, thereby affecting the environment around schools. He further contended that easy availability and consumption of such alcohol could be one of the contributing factors behind a rise in criminal activity.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government has recently implemented significant changes under its revised excise policy. These include the introduction of an e-lottery system for the allocation of liquor and bhang shops. As part of the policy shift, country liquor, which was earlier sold in glass bottles, has now been mandated to be distributed in tetra packs.
The state government has defended the move, stating that the change is aimed at improving product safety and curbing issues related to adulteration. Officials argue that tetra packaging enhances transparency and reduces the chances of counterfeit or contaminated liquor entering the supply chain.
However, the petitioner has strongly opposed the policy, arguing that tetra pack packaging makes alcohol more accessible and portable, potentially increasing misuse. The plea has sought a complete prohibition on the sale of alcohol in such packaging formats.
At this stage, the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly in the matter and observed that the petitioner should first raise her grievances before the relevant administrative and statutory authorities. The court also indicated that such authorities are required to examine the representation in accordance with the law and take an appropriate decision.
The case has reignited debate over alcohol regulation, packaging standards, and public health concerns. While the government maintains that the policy is focused on safety and regulation, critics argue that easier packaging formats could increase accessibility, particularly among youth and in sensitive areas such as school zones.
Legal experts note that in policy-related matters, courts generally avoid direct intervention unless there is a clear violation of law or constitutional provisions. Instead, administrative mechanisms are typically given the first opportunity to review and address such concerns.
Following the issuance of notices by the Supreme Court, the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government are expected to file detailed responses on the issue. The upcoming hearings are likely to determine whether the demand for a ban on tetra pack liquor can gain legal traction or whether the matter remains within the domain of policy discretion.
The case has now evolved beyond a narrow policy dispute, emerging as a broader discussion on public health, regulatory oversight, and the balance between state excise policies and social concerns related to alcohol consumption.
