Liquor licensing policy upheld: minimum sales criteria for IMFL registration were found constitutional and not arbitrary.

Liquor trade is treated as res extra commercium, so there is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to demand access to trade in intoxicants. A State may regulate, restrict, or prohibit such trade through excise policy and licensing conditions, and the minimum sales figure requirement for IMFL registration and licence in Delhi therefore did not violate Article 19(1)(g). The policy also survived Article 14 review because the benchmark was a uniform criterion rationally linked to the objective of admitting brands with wider market acceptance and assurance of quality; it was not shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. The notification was upheld as a valid regulatory measure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification fixing minimum sales figures as an eligibility condition for registration and licence to sell IMFL in Delhi violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by restricting a fundamental right to trade in liquor; (ii) Whether the notification was arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the notification fixing minimum sales figures as an eligibility condition for registration and licence to sell IMFL in Delhi violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by restricting a fundamental right to trade in liquor.

Analysis: The governing law recognises that liquor trade stands on a special footing. Trade in intoxicants is treated as res extra commercium, and the State may regulate, restrict, or even prohibit such trade in the interests of health, morals, and welfare. In that legal framework, the contention that a trader has a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to insist upon access to liquor trade cannot be accepted. The regulatory power of the State under the excise law permits the framing of policy conditions for licensing and supply.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed and was rejected against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification was arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The impugned policy was examined as a regulatory measure aimed at ensuring that only brands with wider market acceptance and corresponding assurance of quality were permitted to enter the Delhi market. Judicial review of executive policy is limited: interference is warranted only if the policy is shown to be mala fide, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair. The minimum sales figure criterion was found to be a uniform standard, rationally connected with the stated object of securing good quality liquor for consumers. The increase in the benchmark was held not to be shown as capricious or discriminatory, and the Court declined to substitute its own assessment for that of the administration.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 also failed and was rejected against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The notification was upheld as a valid regulatory measure under the excise regime, and no constitutional infirmity was found in the policy fixing minimum sales figures for liquor brand registration and licensing.

Ratio Decidendi: There is no fundamental right to trade in intoxicating liquor, and a State licensing policy regulating such trade will be upheld unless it is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, unreasonable, or otherwise unconstitutional.

---