Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking 'Health, Environment Hazard' Warnings On Liquor Bottles- Here's Why

The Delhi High Court on July 4 rejected a plea filed by advocate and BJP spokesperson Ashwini Upadhyay which sought direction to the Delhi government to control the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs, which are detrimental to health.

The Petition

The plea stated that alcohol is hazardous to health and affects the Right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was further alleged that under the barb of providing easy access to liquor shops, the Delhi government had been granting licenses to open liquor shops not only in residential areas and main markets but also near hospitals, schools and temples, which is contrary to the provisions as contained under Delhi Excise Act, 2019, as reported by Live Law.

The petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay went on to say that the new decision of the Delhi government to open three liquor shops in one ward is not only arbitrary and irrational but also violates the rule of law and the Right to Health as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. He laid stress on Article 47, which says that the state is obligated to prohibit the consumption of liquor and drugs.

The petitioner wanted the government to publish health warnings on liquor bottles and packages similar to cigarette packets. The plea added that the 'Health and Environment Hazard' of intoxicating drinks should be advertised through electronic, print and social media to secure the citizen's Right to Know, Right to Information and Right to Health, guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution, as per reports.

The petitioner argued that the government should carry out a Health Impact Assessment and an Environment Impact Assessment on the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the spirit of Articles 21 and 47.

What Did The High Court Say?

Delhi government standing counsel Santosh Kumar Tripathi submitted before the bench that every liquor bottle had the warnings and that the PIL was filed without due research or study.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad said that the warnings the petitioner argues for cannot be put in place on an individual's wishes.

"What your prayer is, is already in the excise rules. I have gone through the excise rules, and I am told that every bottle has this warning. All the specifications are provided under the rules. The statute is there and everyone has to follow it. It is not that I feel it should be in bold letters so it should be like that," the bench said, as reported by Hindustan Times.

The Delhi HC rejected the PIL, and the petitioner sought liberty to file a fresh one highlighting certain new issues.

Also Read: Delhi Municipal Schools Start Initiative To Make Students Aware Of Waste Management Through Artificial Intelligence