The Kerala High Court has challenged the validity of police notices that restrict 'DJ parties' in bar hotels permitted to operate until 3 a.m. under the newly amended Foreign Liquor Rules. A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji heard the State’s appeal against a Single Bench order that had previously set aside these restrictions. The higher court expressed concern over the ambiguity of the term 'DJ party' and its use as a basis for penalizing licensees.
During the proceedings, Additional Advocate General P.A. Mohammed Shah argued that synthetic drug transactions were occurring under the guise of these events. He stated that while bars have licenses to serve liquor, they do not have permission to conduct DJ parties. The court, however, asked the State to define what constitutes a DJ party and why such activities could not be regulated rather than banned outright. The judges noted that if the license allows operations until 3 a.m., it is illogical to presume that illicit activities only occur after midnight.
The bench highlighted the difficulty of policing late-night hours and acknowledged the strain on law enforcement. Justice Ramachandran remarked that the police are essential for public safety and that their concerns regarding drug abuse must be addressed. However, the court insisted that any enforcement action must be based on certainty and clear definitions. The judges suggested that if drug dealings are indeed happening, the license holders should be held personally liable rather than facing blanket bans on specific types of entertainment.
Advocate Anand Kalyankrishnan, representing the hotel manager, assured the court that his client carefully screens all guests to prevent the entry of drugs or other substances. The court noted that the amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules, which allows bars to operate for three hours past the usual closing time, was intended to promote tourism and business. The bench questioned whether the police could restrict these extended hours based on vague terms without specific grounds.
The court clarified that the police remain fully empowered to enforce laws against drug abuse and maintain law and order. However, it emphasized that prohibition is not always the best approach and that strict regulation is preferable. The matter has been posted for further consideration on November 16, with the court indicating that the issue of prohibition versus restriction requires detailed examination.