https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161416 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. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161416 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161416