Can police ban DJ parties at bars licensed till 3 AM without saying what the term means? Hearing the State’s appeal, the Kerala High Court orally asked what a DJ party is and how police could presume drugs are used only after midnight, while making clear that police remain free to act against drug abuse at any hour.
Kochi: Asking the State what exactly it meant by a “DJ party”, the Kerala High Court on Friday questioned the basis of police instructions restricting such events at bar hotels permitted to operate till 3 a.m. under the amended Foreign Liquor Rules, observing orally that “prohibition may not always be the best way forward” and that strict regulation was required instead [State of Kerala v. Mahadevan and Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji was hearing Writ Appeal No. 2375 of 2026, filed by the State against a Single Bench judgment that had set aside police notices curtailing the operation of the Radisson Blu hotel in Kochi beyond midnight and DJ parties after 11 p.m. The Bench passed a short interim order and posted the appeal for hearing on merits on 16 November 2026. The remarks below were made orally during the hearing, and the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the appeal.
“What is a DJ party?”
The Bench orally asked how the State could stop a licensee permitted to operate until 3 a.m., and pressed it on the meaning of the term used in the police letter:
“What is a DJ party? We are all talking about things, uncertain things, and uncertain definitions….your letter says ‘no DJ party’, you are using a very uncertain term to fix certain penalties.”
The Court said it stood with the State on ridding the country of drugs, but added orally that prohibition at one venue would only push such activity elsewhere, and asked how police could presume that drugs are used only after 11 p.m. or midnight. Justice Ramachandran asked whether piped music or a dance show without a disc jockey would also be prohibited. The AAG replied that the State’s concern was not the terminology but illegal activities late into the night near such premises, and that the State was not against DJ parties as such.
Acknowledging the difficulty of night policing, the Bench orally remarked that police “are our friends” and suggested that if drug dealings occur under the guise of such parties, personal liability should be fixed on the persons in whose name the licence is held. Counsel Anand Kalyanakrishnan, for the hotel manager, assured the Court that every guest is screened for drugs or other substances before entry.
Why the State appealed
Additional Advocate General P.A. Mohammed Shah, instructed by Government Pleader Renoy Vincent, submitted that the police instructions were issued because police were finding it difficult to maintain order at night on account of increasing drug use. He said the instructions were not against bar permit rooms of five-star hotels operating until 3 a.m. under a valid FL-3 licence, but against “unrestrained and uncontrolled parties” in which drugs find their way. He told the Court that the Rules were amended on 13 February 2026, that 33 hotels received 3 a.m. permission in March 2026, and that law and order problems had since arisen in the city.
The judgment being challenged
Earlier this week, the Single Bench had held that DJ-ing is not a prohibited art form, that participants have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully, and that police cannot curtail the operating hours permitted to a hotel under the Rules unless special grounds justify it, while noting that residents nearby have a right to live without noise pollution.
What the interim order records
In its written interim order, the Bench recorded:
“Indubitably, the police are enjoined and fully empowered to enforce every measure and step, to rid our State of drugs and substance abuse – be that in the day or night.”
“We consequently clarify the order that the declarations, holdings and directions in the impugned judgment would not stand in the way of the police enforcing law and order through every legally necessary and permissible manner, including by maintaining requisite vigil and attention on all deleterious activities, especially drug and substance abuse.”
The Court noted that the police instructions appeared concerned with unrestrained parties rather than consumption of liquor as such, and said it could not be blind to ground realities and had to balance them. It will hear the appeal on merits on 16 November 2026.
Why the hearing matters
The appeal tests how far police can restrict activities at premises that hold valid licences to operate late into the night, and whether broadly worded instructions such as a ban on “DJ parties” can be enforced with penalties. The Bench’s oral emphasis on certainty in regulation and on licensee liability, together with its clarification that police powers against drug abuse remain intact, frames the prohibition-versus-regulation question it will take up on merits. The outcome is likely to affect the 33 hotels granted extended hours under the amended Foreign Liquor Rules.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v. Mahadevan and Others [W.A. No. 2375 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji, Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing and Order: November 13, 2026
Appearances: Mr. P.A. Mohammed Shah, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Renoy Vincent, Government Pleader, for the Appellants; Mr. Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Mr. S. Rajeev, Mr. C. Dheeraj Rajan, Mr. V. Vinay, Mr. M.S. Aneer and Mr. Libin Varghese, Advocates, for the Respondents