The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the assistance of solicitor general Tushar Mehta in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the sale of alcohol in tetra packs, alleging that deceptive packaging resembling fruit juice could mislead consumers, encourage underage drinking and pose public health risks.
“We grant four weeks to the Union of India to file its counter affidavit. In the meantime, the petitioner may serve a copy of the paper book on the office of the solicitor general. “It is alarming that these tetra packs are marketed under labels such as ‘Bunty Premium Vodka’, ‘Chilli Mango Vodka’, and ‘Premium Romanov Vodka – Apple Thrill’, clearly intended to mislead consumers. The petition was opposed by the Action Alliance for Recycling Beverage Cartons (AARC), a society comprising companies engaged in the packaging business, including those selling alcoholic beverages. An application filed by AARC was argued by senior advocate Arvind Datar, who stated that there was no harm in selling alcoholic beverages in tetra packs and sachets, as such packaging avoids adulteration and cannot be recycled. The court allowed AARC to be part of the proceedings and granted the association time to file its response to the petition. It also directed the states to respond. The PIL stated that unlike cigarette packs and tobacco sachets, which carry statutory warnings, these packs carry no such labels, and even where warnings are present, they are barely visible. These drinks masquerade as fruit juice, and such packaging facilitates easy access and concealment, encourages underage consumption, promotes public drinking and drunk driving, and even enables smuggling across state borders, it added.
He further pointed out that such packages are allowed under the prevailing excise laws in 10 states. Nair said that his petition also seeks mandatory age verification, as the sale of alcohol is prohibited to persons below 18 years of age.
Granting four weeks for the Centre to file its response to the petition filed by an organisation, Community Against Drunken Driving, a bench headed by justice Vikram Nath said that despite notice being issued on the petition in May, no response had been filed by the Centre, nor had any lawyer appeared on behalf of the central government. List after six weeks,” the bench, also comprising justices R Mahadevan and Aparesh Kumar Singh, said. The petition was argued by advocate Vipin Nair, who said, “It seems the Centre is not very serious about the issue. He said that the packaged alcohol had deceptive names and pictures which attracted minors to consume the drink. The use of fruit names alongside colour photographs of apples and mangoes on the packaging further reinforces this deception,” the petition said. Datar showed samples of alcoholic beverages and said that health is a state subject and that excise also falls under the jurisdiction of states.
The petition stated that states’ discretion in defining bottles should be guided by environmental and health concerns, rather than solely by the revenue such sales would generate for state coffers. The petition added that the Central Excise law also provides no help in this regard. “It is apparent that the excise authorities in various states have allowed liquor to be packaged and sold in inconspicuous packaging. Such packages are very easy to sneak into public places such as parks, educational institutes, and cinema halls.
As a result, liquor is available in portable PET bottles, plastic sachets and tetra packs across states.
The petitioner NGO, which has been actively pursuing a campaign against drunken driving, said that the issue needs to be tackled legally because the definitions of “bottling” and “bottle” under different state excise acts are “broad and varying”, with a bottle encompassing pots, baskets, flasks, wrappers and other similar receptacles. Even children cannot be spotted easily if they consume liquor from such packages,” the petition said. These packs are cheap, encouraging young, impressionable minds to purchase and consume more, the petition said, urging the court to lay down uniform guidelines to protect the health and lives of citizens.
