Government should give clarity on law that authorizes liquor ban for 48 hours: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has questioned the legality of a 48-hour liquor ban before elections, seeking clarification from the state government following a challenge by Bengaluru hoteliers against a District Collector's order. The directive mandated liquor outlet closures during specified hours surrounding the teachers' constituency election.

The Karnataka High Court has raised questions regarding the legal basis for enforcing a 48-hour liquor ban ahead of elections, directing the state government to provide clarification on the matter. This directive comes in response to a dispute filed by Bengaluru hoteliers against an order issued by the District Collector, which mandated the closure of liquor outlets during certain hours surrounding the teachers' constituency election.

In a recent development, the Karnataka High Court has sought clarification from the state government regarding the legislation enabling the imposition of a 48-hour liquor ban preceding elections. This inquiry was prompted by a legal challenge mounted by Bengaluru hoteliers against a directive issued by the District Collector.

Bengaluru: Liquor sales barred for three days from February 14 for Teacher's constituency by-election

The order in question, issued on February 1, mandated the closure of wholesale and retail liquor outlets within the police commissionerate area of Bengaluru. These closures were slated to occur on February 14 from 5 pm to 12 midnight and on February 16 from 6 am to 12 midnight, coinciding with the polling day, as well as on February 20, the day of vote counting, in light of the by-elections for the Bengaluru teachers' constituency of the Vidhan Parishad.

Karnataka High Court sets six weeks deadline for government to submit BBMP illegalities report

Four individuals, including Virendra N. Kamath, representing the Bengaluru Hoteliers Association, contested this order before the High Court. Upon hearing the petition, Justice S.R. Krishnakumar expressed reservations about the validity of such a directive, deeming it inappropriate. The bench adjourned the hearing to February 14, urging the government to elucidate the legal basis for issuing such orders.

During the proceedings, senior advocate M. Arun Shyam, representing the petitioners, argued that the by-election for the teachers' constituency was not akin to a general election, with only approximately 16 thousand eligible voters. He emphasized the adverse impact of a 48-hour liquor ban on traders and entrepreneurs, advocating instead for restrictions solely on polling day. The petitioners sought permission to resume retail, wholesale liquor sales, and hotel operations.