Supreme Court Upholds MP High Court Direction To Renew Som Distilleries Liquor Licence, dismissing the State of Madhya Pradesh’s challenge to the High Court ruling in the distillery company’s favour.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s direction to renew the liquor licence of Som Distilleries and dismissed the State’s challenge to that ruling [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Som Distilleries Private Limited].
The matter was heard by a bench that included Justice Joymalya Bagchi; the other members of the bench and the case number were not available at the time of writing. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Som Distilleries, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta addressed the Court in the matter.
An exchange in Court
During the hearing, Mr Rohatgi submitted that there were only six or seven players in the area and likened the company’s position to that of a person living in the water who cannot afford to antagonise the crocodile. Mr Mehta, in a lighter vein, remarked that the company was swimming in liquor, not water. Justice Bagchi responded, “That is more harmful than water.”
How the dispute reached the Supreme Court
The dispute began in February 2026, when the Excise Commissioner suspended eight licences held by two Som group companies under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915. The action followed a show-cause notice issued after a trial court convicted several employees in a case arising from a 2011 incident in which a truck carrying liquor was found without a valid licence. Criminal appeals against those convictions were pending and the sentences had been suspended, according to the company’s submissions before the High Court.
On March 23, 2026, a single judge of the High Court at Jabalpur, Justice Vivek Agarwal, dismissed the companies’ writ petition, holding that the procedural requirements of Section 31(1-A) had been met. On April 15, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal disposed of the writ appeal, holding that renewal applications must be decided on their own merits under the Act and not be prejudiced by the writ court’s observations.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Allows Hauz Khas Social to Resume Liquor Service
The High Court ruling on renewal
According to the company’s disclosure, the renewal applications for the 2026-27 licensing year were thereafter rejected by an order dated June 18, 2026. By a judgment of September 24, 2026, the High Court set that order aside and directed the renewal of all manufacturing licences within 15 days, awarded Rs 1 lakh as costs against the State and preserved the company’s right to seek damages for losses during the closure period before an appropriate forum. It is this direction that the State carried to the Supreme Court.
The legal position
The Madhya Pradesh Excise Act empowers the Excise Commissioner to suspend or cancel a licence on specified grounds, including offences by the licensee or persons acting on its behalf. The Division Bench had earlier noted that Section 31 deals with suspension and cancellation and not with renewal, so that a renewal application stands on its own statutory footing. As the Supreme Court’s written order was not available when this report was prepared, its reasoning, if any, is not covered here.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Som Distilleries Private Limited (case number not available)
Bench: Supreme Court bench including Justice Joymalya Bagchi (other members not available)
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for Som Distilleries; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta