New Delhi: The Supreme Court may soon order states to ban the sale of liquor in tetra packs.
The top court, on Monday, expressed concern and noted that such lightweight, compact and inconspicuous packaging could enable school and college students to access and carry liquor without detection.
The bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed alarm that the packaging style, which resembles harmless beverage cartons, could slip past parents, teachers and authorities, raising serious public health and ethical concerns.
The Court was hearing a trademark dispute between John Distilleries and Allied Blenders and Distillers, manufacturers of ‘Original Choice’ and ‘Officer’s Choice’ respectively. During the proceedings, both bottled and tetra-pack versions of the products were placed before the court, prompting an unexpected and intense discussion on their availability and regulatory approval.
Justice Kant expressed surprise upon seeing whiskey sold in tetra packs, stating that this was the first time he had encountered such packaging. He questioned how authorities could allow a form that looks similar to common juice or flavoured milk boxes, making it extremely easy for minors to slip it inside school bags, college backpacks or public spaces where alcohol is ordinarily restricted.
Permitting such products could have severe consequences, he noted, and asked whether the issue needed urgent policy consideration beyond the ongoing trademark matter.
“Should this even be permitted? Because it is so easy to carry in schools, colleges, etc,” Justice Kant said, suggesting that governments must prioritise community welfare over commercial benefits.
While senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing one of the parties, noted that tetra packs form a major share of liquor sales due to their affordability, another senior advocate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, criticised state governments for prioritising revenue, arguing that these packs often lack clear warnings and do not visually resemble alcohol products, adding to their deceptive nature.
Justice Bagchi also condemned the approach of state administrations, asserting that public health cannot be compromised for monetary gain. He warned that the long-term burden on healthcare systems could overshadow any short-term fiscal benefits earned through excise revenue.
The bench urged all stakeholders to consider the issue from a larger public-interest perspective, indicating that public policy, child safety and consumer transparency must be examined urgently.
There are likely to be further hearings in the matter, with the court hinting that policy regulators may eventually be involved to address what it considers a serious emerging concern.
