Kerala High Court Stays BEVCO's Liquor Naming Contest, Flags Concern Over Use Of Public Exchequer

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 12) ordered an interim stay on the contest announced by BEVCO [Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation] and Malabar Distilleries Ltd. inviting suggestions from the public to give a name and logo for a proposed premium brandy product.

Division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering two public interest litigations challenging the conduct of the contest.

When the matter came up for consideration today, the counsel for one of the petitioners in the two PILs argued that the contest conducted by the government will create a bad precedent, which will be followed by private liquor manufacturing companies. The counsel also argued that the contest was in gross violation of Section 55H of the Abkari Act, which imposes penalty for unlawful advertisement.

Further, it was contended that the contest is, in fact, promoting consumption of alcohol. He submitted that a press release has been made by the Malabar Distilleries announcing that the prize of the contest will be distributed in a function to be held on February 21. He thus, pressed for an interim stay against the contest.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner in the other PIL referred to BEVCO's counter, in which he states the BEVCO had said that it has no knowledge of the contest.

The BEVCO has filed a counter in the case wherein it is stated that it is a corporation fully owned and controlled by the State government. It is further submitted that BEVCO has not issued any notification or press release for such a contest. As per the counter, BEVCO is not engaged in the manufacture of liquor and therefore, no relief can be sought against it.

He then submitted that it is required to know whether the Board of Directors of the BEVCO approved the contest and whether the Excise Commissioner granted permission, whether the legal vetting was undertaken, whether statutory warning requirements were complied with. He said that at minimum, the Court may require respondents to disclose the authority under which such a public engagement was undertaken.

The government pleader opposed the plea and stated that at the time when the names were suggested or the advertisement was granted, no licence was granted. She further submitted that it was only for sake of inviting suggestions from the public for a non-existent liquor brand.

On hearing the same, Justice Sen orally asked: "So you will spend money for a non-existent...Public exchequer money will be spent?"

The government pleader replied that the State is not undertaking the contest and only the company is.

"It's a public sector undertaking. How much percentage of share do you own?...You have said so in the counter...So you are Article 12 in that way. Then would you spend money for this purpose? Media advertisement..." Justice Sen orally questioned.

The government pleader's reply to this query was that the media advertisement is not by the excise department or with the concurrence of the department.

She further argued that the said will not come within the purview of Section 55H, which provides for a maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment. She said that if such an offence is established, the Magistrate court has to be approached directly by filing a complaint. 

After considering the submission, the Bench passed an interim order granting stay of the contest. It observed:

"We stay all further proceedings of the contest announced by the respondent no 3 and 4 until final disposal of the writ petition as we are prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has an arguable case of merit and...the nature of the advertisement is actually, is in effect, soliciting use of the liquor and a…measure towards the product being made available in the market."

The case is posted of March 12 for further consideration.

Case Title: M.M. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Case No: WP(PIL) 2/ 2026 and WP(PIL) 7/ 2026

Counsel for the petitioners: Radhakrishnan R, Christil Shaji, Anzar Basheer, K S Muralikrishnan Nair, Jayachandran R, Sailaj Ramachandran