New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued strong remarks against state governments for permitting the sale of alcohol in tetra packs, warning that such lightweight, compact and inconspicuous packaging could enable school and college students to access and carry liquor without detection. The bench 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.
What Is he Case About?
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while 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 appeared visibly surprised 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.
SC Judge Highlights Serious Consequences
He remarked that permitting such products could have severe consequences 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,” he said, suggesting that governments must prioritise community welfare over commercial benefits.
Also Watch:
Senior Advocate Brings In Affordability Factor
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. Further hearings are expected, with the court hinting that policy regulators may eventually be involved to address what it considers a serious emerging concern.
