Can the police shorten Licensed Bar Hours because a crime might happen? The Kerala High Court has said no, quashing notices that restricted DJ events at a Kochi hotel after 11 PM.
Kochi: “Mere possibility of criminal activities cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient justification for imposing restrictions under the Kerala Police Act on the extended operating hours of FL3 hotels permitted under the Foreign Liquor Amendment Rules.” With this holding, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday set aside police notices that barred DJ programmes beyond 11 PM at the Radisson Blu Hotel, Kadavanthra [Mahadevan v. State of Kerala & Ors.].
Justice Murali Purushothaman allowed the hotel’s writ petition on November 10, 2026. The detailed judgment is awaited.
The hotel’s grievance
The petition was filed on behalf of the Radisson Blu Hotel at Kadavanthra, Kochi. The Excise Department had permitted the hotel’s bar to function till 3 AM under the extended hours allowed by the Foreign Liquor Amendment Rules. The police, however, issued notices restricting the timing of DJ events at the hotel, and the hotel sought to have them quashed.
Its case was that the extension granted by the excise authorities allowed it to carry on its business during the extended hours, and that the police could not cut those hours short.
Where the Court drew the line
The Court made clear that the police are not powerless against actual crime, but must act through the law rather than by curtailing licensed hours:
“If the police have reason to believe that criminal activities are taking place under the guise of DJ parties in hotels, it is the responsibility of the police to take stringent action in accordance with law to curb the same…Until the government frames appropriate rules prescribing exception to the extended hours of operation permitted in the Foreign Liquor Rules, the police cannot curtail or restrict the operating hours of the hotel contrary to the provisions granted under those Rules in the absence of special grounds justifying such restrictions.”
The Court allowed the petition and set aside the notices issued to the hotel.
The police case for the cut-off
Defending the cut-off, the Police Commissioner filed an affidavit pointing to what he described as a rapid growth in late-night commercial entertainment, accompanied by a rise in drug-related crimes and sexual offences. According to the affidavit, the number of venues with late-night permits had grown from 3 to over 34, with organisers charging entry fees of ₹1,500 to ₹6,000 per person and up to ₹20,000 for table reservations.
The affidavit stated that several criminal cases had been registered in connection with such events, including cases relating to unlawful assembly, narcotic drugs and crimes against women. It referred to incidents at the petitioner hotel itself, including a violent clash, an NDPS case in which 8 persons were arrested during a party, and a case of rioting and damage to hotel property during a DJ event. These are allegations in the police affidavit and the related cases remain to be decided in accordance with law.
The Commissioner argued that an FL-3 licence authorises the service of liquor and meals, not an unrestricted right to hold high-decibel DJ events or large gatherings, and that extended bar timings cannot override police powers under the Kerala Police Act, 2011, to regulate activities affecting public order. He clarified that the notices only barred DJ programmes after 11 PM and did not stop the service of alcohol until 3 AM.
What the ruling changes
The ruling draws a line between two regulators. Operating hours of licensed bars are governed by the excise regime under the Foreign Liquor Rules, and the Court has held that the police cannot use general public-order powers under the Kerala Police Act to override those hours on suspicion alone. Any exception to the extended hours must come through rules framed by the State Government, or rest on special grounds.
At the same time, the judgment does not leave the police without tools. It places the burden on them to act against actual offences, such as drug use or crimes against women, through stringent enforcement of the law, rather than through blanket curbs on lawful business. The detailed reasoning, once released, will show how far this principle extends to other late-night venues across the State.
Case Title: Mahadevan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Bench: Justice Murali Purushothaman, Kerala High Court
Date of Judgment: November 10, 2026
Appearances: Advocates S Rajeev, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, C Dheeraj Rajan, V Vinay, MS Aneer and Libin Varghese for the petitioner hotel; Additional Advocate General PA Mohammed Shah for the State