Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has set aside the Kerala Government’s 2007 notification fixing the ethyl alcohol content in coconut toddy at 8.1% v/v. The court held that, in light of an Expert Committee’s findings, prosecutions initiated under this limit could not be maintained. It directed that all such proceedings be quashed and disposed of the batch of civil appeals and special leave petitions before it.

The present batch of matters arose from a large number of First Information Reports registered against multiple licensees of toddy shops in Kerala for alleged violation of Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 2002. The alleged violation pertained to exceeding the prescribed ethyl alcohol content limit for coconut toddy.

Also Read: Absence Of Injuries Cannot Undermine Credible Testimony | Supreme Court Says Survivor’s Sole Account Enough For Rape Conviction

In February 2007, the Government of Kerala issued G.O. (P) No. 25/2007/TD, notified as S.R.O. No. 145/2007, prescribing that the ethyl alcohol content in coconut toddy should not exceed 8.1% v/v. This specification formed the basis for prosecution in numerous cases when toddy samples allegedly tested above the limit.

Affected licensees challenged the validity of the notification before the High Court of Kerala, asserting that the specified limit was not reflective of the natural properties of coconut toddy. They contended that the ethyl alcohol content could naturally exceed the prescribed limit due to fermentation processes beyond the control of licensees. The petitions argued that prosecutions based solely on exceeding this limit were unsustainable.

The Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the petitions on 31 October 2007. On appeal, the Division Bench upheld this dismissal on 3 April 2009, affirming that the ethyl alcohol content should not exceed 8.1% v/v. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court through civil appeals and special leave petitions.

During the pendency of these proceedings, the Supreme Court, on 1 May 2024, directed the State Government to revisit the Rules, specifically to examine whether the 8.1% v/v limit was appropriate. It instructed the Government to undertake an in-depth study to determine the natural ethyl alcohol strength of coconut toddy, considering implications for public health.

Following this direction, the State constituted an Expert Committee. The Committee collected coconut toddy samples from across Kerala under Excise Department supervision. These were analyzed at the three regional laboratories of the Chief Chemical Examiner to the Government of Kerala, using standardized and validated methods. The analysis was supplemented with a review of relevant scientific literature.

In its final report, the Expert Committee recommended that the maximum allowed ethyl alcohol content from self-produced coconut palm toddy at 15.56°C should be fixed at 8.98% v/v. This recommendation was based on experimental investigations and was placed before the Government.

On 16 July 2025, the Government issued G.O. (Rt) No. 665/2025/TAXES approving the Expert Committee’s findings. It noted that the earlier 8.1% v/v limit was set aside for reconsideration following the Supreme Court’s directive and that the new limit would be notified after considering the Committee’s recommendations.

When the matter returned to the Supreme Court on 23 July 2025, the State placed the Government Order and Expert Committee report on record, confirming that the 8.1% v/v limit was no longer sustainable as the statutory benchmark.

The Division Bench recorded: “In view of the above clarity by virtue of the Expert Committee report, prosecutions based on the assumption that the maximum ethyl alcohol content of coconut toddy shall not exceed 8.1% v/v cannot be sustained.”

The Bench noted that the Government’s approval of the Expert Committee’s report resolved the central factual controversy in the case, making the prosecutions under the old limit legally untenable.

Also Read: Cause Of Action Arises From Clear Refusal, Not Mere Delay | Calcutta High Court Says Limitation Defence In Flat Dispute For Arbitrator To Decide

The court directed that, given the Expert Committee’s report and the Government Order dated 16 July 2025, prosecutions premised on the 8.1% v/v limit in coconut toddy were unsustainable in law. It explicitly set aside G.O. (P) No. 25/2007/TD dated 14 February 2007, notified as S.R.O. No. 145/2007, which had fixed the ethyl alcohol content limit at 8.1% v/v.

The Bench ordered that all prosecutions initiated on the basis of S.R.O. No. 145/2007 be quashed forthwith. It further disposed of all the civil appeals and special leave petitions before it in terms of this order.

Pending applications in these matters, if any, were directed to stand disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Roy Abraham, Advocate; Ms. Reena Roy, Advocate; Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy, Advocate; Mr. Yaduinder Lal, Advocate; Mr. Sarswata Mohapatra, Advocate; Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR; Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Senior Advocate; Ms. Anna Oommen, Advocate; Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR; Ms. Sayed Nazarat Fatima, Advocate; Mr. Ranjith K.C., AOR; Mr. Vishal Arun, AOR; M/s. Lawfic, AOR; Mr. Boby Augustine, Advocate; Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Vishnu Shankar M., Advocate; Ms. Iram Naaz, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. S.P. Chaly, Senior Advocate; Mr. R. Sathish, AOR; Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., AOR; Mr. Shibu Devasia Olickal, AOR; Ms. Bina Madhavan, AOR; Mr. P.V. Surendranath, Senior Advocate; Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate; Ms. Ashly Harshad, Advocate; Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Advocate; Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Advocate; Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR; Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR; Ms. Niveditha R. Menon, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocate; Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate; Mr. V.K. Biju, AOR; Mr. G. Prakash, AOR; Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Ritik Dwivedi, Advocate.

Case Title: Komalan Etc. Etc. v. The State of Kerala Rep. by Secretary Taxes(A) Department and Ors. Etc.

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 4039-4053 of 2009 with connected matters and SLP(Crl) Nos. 3263-3266 of 2011

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Atul S. Chandurkar