Safiya Malik

The Kerala High Court has held that a private function conducted within the confines of a person’s residence does not require an FL-6 license for serving liquor. The court recorded that the government's interpretation, which equated serving liquor to guests at a private event with an act of sale, was legally unsustainable. It further observed that while statutory restrictions on liquor possession and public consumption remain applicable, imposing licensing requirements on private social gatherings was beyond the scope of the existing legal framework.

The petitioner, Alex V. Chacko, a resident of Peroor in Kottayam, approached the High Court seeking a declaration that he was not required to obtain an FL-6 license to serve liquor at a baptism ceremony for his grandson. The petitioner intended to host approximately 300 guests and argued that serving liquor at such gatherings was customary in his community.

In January 2015, the petitioner had celebrated his eldest daughter’s betrothal and intended to serve liquor at the event. At that time, excise officials directed him to obtain an FL-6 license, which he complied with by securing two licenses as required under the Foreign Liquor Regulations, 1953. To avoid similar complications, the petitioner sought prior clarification from excise authorities for his upcoming event. However, he was again informed that a license was necessary. The petitioner alleged that excise officials threatened to search his house and initiate legal action if liquor was served without obtaining the required permission.

The petitioner argued that under the Government Order dated December 14, 2012, an individual is permitted to possess a specific quantity of liquor. He contended that members of his family collectively possessed a legal quantity of liquor obtained from foreign travel and that serving it at a private event within his home did not constitute an offense.

The state opposed the petition, asserting that serving liquor, even at a private event, required an FL-6 license. The government contended that such restrictions were necessary to prevent individuals from circumventing the law and illegally vending liquor. It argued that without such controls, any residence could be turned into an unlicensed bar under the guise of serving liquor to guests. The government also cited provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act, including Section 3(15), which defines "sale" to include the gifting of liquor, and Section 15(C), which prohibits consumption in public places.

The Kerala High Court examined whether the petitioner’s house, including an adjacent temporary structure (panthal) set up for the function, could be considered a "public place" under the Kerala Abkari Act. The court referred to Explanation I of Section 15(C), which defines public places and explicitly excludes private residential spaces. It recorded: "So, going by the Explanation I appended to Section 15, we have no manner of doubt that Alex’s house, with the adjacent panthal, does not qualify to be a public place."

The court also considered the government's argument that serving liquor to guests amounted to vending or gifting under the law. It observed that if this interpretation were accepted, individuals would have to apply for an FL-6 license and pay Rs. 50,000 even to offer a single glass of wine to a guest. The court recorded: "If you offer a glass of wine costing, say, Rs.100, to your guest one evening, you must apply and obtain a licence by paying Rs.50,000/- that is what the fee prescribed for obtaining an FL-6 licence."

The court further addressed the government's apprehension that permitting unlicensed liquor consumption at private events would lead to large-scale abuse and illicit liquor trade. The court noted that the government already had strict regulations on liquor possession and public consumption, stating: "If any person violates either of these norms, in the name of serving his guests in his ‘house,’ the Government, we reiterate, is not powerless. It can always act—in accordance with law, however."

The court also addressed the broader implications of government control over private social gatherings. It referenced the long-standing legal principle that a person’s home is their private domain, protected from unwarranted state interference. It recorded: "The Government’s vigil on the liquor abuse is laudable; its insistence, in that process, to invade privacy of homes is not."

After examining the legal provisions, the court ordered that the petitioner was not required to obtain an FL-6 license for the private function at his residence. However, it stated that other legal regulations concerning possession limits and restrictions on unlicensed sales remained applicable. The judgment stated: "We hold that a private function in the precincts of a person’s house does not fall within the mischief of Rule 13(6) of the Foreign Liquor Regulations, 1953. But, even to those private family functions, the other regulations, for example, concerning quantity, and the identity of place will apply."

Case Title: Alex V. Chacko vs. The Director General of Police (Law & Order) & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 17383 of 2017 (W)
Bench: Justice Antony Dominic, Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu

[Read/Download order]