The Karnataka High Court, through Justice M. Nagaprasanna, directed breweries to ensure strict age verification via Aadhaar or valid ID, stressing checks must not be “perfunctory” but actively enforced to prevent underage alcohol access.
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court stressed that establishments serving alcohol, including breweries, must carry out rigorous age verification via Aadhaar checks or other valid ID before allowing customers to enter.
Justice M. Nagraprasanna observed that age checks cannot be treated as mere formalities.
The Court stated,
“Breweries and similar establishments, which have proliferated in urban spaces must initiate rigorous age verification protocols, be it through Aadhar or other valid identification, at threshold of entry and further verification should follow, when liquor is ordered by persons who appear youthful or underage. The Breweries or the places where alcohol is being sold cannot be complacent. Age verification cannot be a perfunctory ritual, it must be a living practice by display of conspicuous warnings by insistence upon documentary proof,”
The court added that management cannot shrug off responsibility if minors gain access to such premises and consume alcohol.
The Court said,
“The protection of youth is not merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative. The Managements of the places would be held accountable for any lapses,”
These remarks came while the court refused to quash proceedings against V. Chitti Babu, a partner in Legacy Brewing Company, who faces allegations that a 15-year-old was allowed to drink on the brewery’s premises. The boy later died the same day after falling from the seventh floor of his apartment; initial suspicion was suicide, but investigators later found alcohol in his system.
Criminal charges were brought against the brewery representatives under Section 36(1)(g) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, and Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
ALSO READ: Patna High Court: Breath Analyzer Test Not Conclusive Proof of Alcohol Consumption
A previous petition to quash the case had been allowed last month because the police failed to obtain the Magistrate’s required permission before registering offences classified as non-cognisable. After obtaining that permission, a fresh case was filed, and the brewery partner again sought to have it quashed.
The petitioner contended that the brewery did not serve alcohol and that the minor and his companions had smuggled in liquor themselves; the establishment allegedly provided only food and water. The petitioner’s counsel argued the youth drank alcohol they had brought in.
The court, however, pointed out that both the Karnataka Excise Act and the JJ Act penalize not only serving minors but also permitting them to remain where alcohol is sold.
The judgment said,
“The legislative intent is clear. A licensee having been entrusted with the privilege of dealing in intoxicants bears a corresponding and higher duty of vigilance. The law casts upon him, not merely an obligation to refrain from serving minors, but also duty to ensure that minors do not remain in the premises where intoxicants are sold or manufactured,”
The court emphasized that the central issue is not solely whether the minor was served but how underage individuals were allowed entry in the first place.
It said,
“The very fact that boys of underage were permitted entry into a Brewery, premises dedicated to the sale and manufacture of excisable articles raises serious concerns,”
ALSO READ: Karnataka HC:Hookah Equals Cigarette Risks
The bench also raised concerns about whether the establishment failed to notice minors consuming alcohol they brought in.
The Court observed,
“If it is contended that the liquor was consumed without the knowledge of the staff or management, that contention itself necessitates enquiry. It is an admitted norm that liquor from outside is not permitted within such Establishments. If minors could carry intoxicants inside, evade detection and consume them unchecked demands scrutiny. Investigation therefore becomes imperative to ascertain how underage individuals gained entry without age verification; whether any mechanism existed to scrutinize identification of documents; whether supervisory safeguards were in place and whether statutory obligations cast upon the licensee were discharged with the vigilance the law demands,”
Given these concerns, the court dismissed the petition from the brewery partner, finding that the matter warrants thorough investigation and a trial.
Advocate Sharath S. Gowda represented the petitioner, V. Chitti Babu. Additional State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha appeared for the State.
Case Title: V Chitti Babu Vs State of Karnataka
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE