Click the Play button to listen to article

The Kerala High Court on Friday (November 13) asked the State police what it meant by the term 'DJ party' when it is seeking to restricting the same in bar hotels, which have received permits to operate till 3 a.m. as per the newly amended Foreign Liquor Rules.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji posed the question while considering the State's appeal against a Single Bench order, which set aside the police notices restricting the operation of Kochi Radisson Blu hotel beyond 12:00 am and curtailing DJ parties after 11 pm.

Earlier this week, the Single Bench had observed that that DJ-ing is not a prohibited art form and that participants of DJ parties have the fundamental right to assemble peacefully. It had also added that the licensee of a FL-3 bar hotel has the fundamental right to carry on any profession or business of his choice whereas those living in the vicinity have the fundamental right to live without noise pollution. It was also held that police cannot curtail the operating hours permitted to the hotel as per the Rules unless there are special grounds justifying the same.

Today, when the appeal came up, Additional Advocate General P.A. Mohammed Shah told the Court that synthetic drug transactions are taking place under the guise of DJ parties. He added that the bar hotel has only permission to serve liquor as per the licence and it cannot conduct DJ parties.

The Court then orally asked the State:

"You have given the license. Now, does the license permit them to work until 3 o'clock in the morning? Then how can you stop it?...Then you should not give them this permission...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. This is where we are slightly having the trouble. We are not against you. We are also with the State. When you want this country or the State to be rid of all these nonsense, as we call “drugs” and all that, all substances, drugs have to be wiped off. But this is not the way to do it. If you do this here, they will go somewhere else. They will take a room and then do it. So what is it that we require? It is regulation. So when you give a license to a person to run a bar until 3 o'clock, how do you presume that drugs happen only after 12 o'clock or 11 o'clock? The drugs can happen at 7 o'clock, in the afternoon, can happen now."

The AAG pointed out that it is after the amendment of the Foreign Liquor Rules in February this year that this issue has heightened:

"On 13.02.2026, this amendment carried out and Exhibit P4 [permission to operate till 3 am] issued to petitioner. In 33 hotels, this permission has been granted in March 2026. Now we are on November. What is happening in the city is that persons are coming from outside by 10 o clock, in the midnight, and they will be here in the city and, law and order situations are happening."

Justice Ramachandran then asked the AAG what the situation would be if there is no "DJ party" but there is "piped music":

"You are saying DJ party is an incentive for them to come. That is why we are asking you, what is the DJ party? It is a policy decision that no party shall happen. Why call it DJ party? What is DJ? I know the lingo - Disc Jockey, one who controls the music. Beyond that, there is nothing. What if there is piped music? What if there is a dancing show where anybody can go and dance? So this is why we say this is an uncertain term that you have used. We understand the police. We completely stand with the police now, please understand these are matters which require certainty. When you are enforcing a law on somebody or a regulation on somebody, that requires to be certain. Suppose there is no DJ. There is no disc jockey involved in that case at all. But there is large music, piped music going on. Is that prohibited?" 



The AAG replied that the State's concern is not on the terminology "DJ Party" but the fact that there are illegal activities happening late into the night near the premises of such parties.

The Court then referred to the explanatory note in the amendment to the Foreign Liquor Rules and noted that the permission to function 3 hours after the purposeful closing time of 12 am is in the interest of of promoting meetings, exhibitions, tourism, destination, wedding, international conference, and conferences. It then said:

"Now, are they ejusdem generis? Are they exclusive definitions, or the inclusive definitions? We have to decide. And it is only an explanatory note, not a definition. The definition does not say so. Definition says, you can keep your bar open till 3 o'clock. You are saying, we are not concerned about the bar, you continue to vend liquor, we have no problem, but we don't want youngsters to party. How do you now take the contention? How do you assume as the police have done?"

AAG reverted that for the police, it is a matter considering the law and order situation and that the State is not against DJ parties as such.

The Court then acknowledged that policing duty at night is difficult and asked if there are, in fact, drug dealings happening under the guise of DJ parties, then the person, under whose name licence is given, must be made personally liable:

"We understand the problem of the police because policing in the night is very difficult...We know that drugs have no time. Nights, police are finding it difficult, they have other duties to do. When we are all sleeping, they are awake, and they are policing the city. And we have a responsibility to them also. We can't take police to be our enemies. They are the reason why we are all asleep. You take away police from the equation, will you sleep a day in your home? You can't. So we cannot take away police. Police is part of our system. They are our friends. So, therefore, the police say that we are finding it difficult to police, because we are finding all this happening. This is because of persons who are calling these parties, go scot-free. You must be imposing personal liabilities on these people." 

Advocate Anand Kalyankrishnan appearing for the hotel manager, however, assured that his client always ensure that every customer/guest walk coming there are admitted after being carefully screened and scrutinised for carrying drugs or other substances.

After hearing the parties, the Court remarked that the matter must be heard in detail since it is an issue of prohibition versus restriction. It posted the case to Monday (November 16) for further consideration and passed an interim order:

"We have little doubt that policing in the city, as also in the rest of the State, has to be strong and never wanting. However, prohibition may not always be the best way forward; but rather strict regulation...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."

Counsel for appellant: P.A Mohammed Shah - Additional Advocate General, Renoy Vincent - Government Pleader

Counsel for the respondents: Anand Kalyanakrishnan, S. Rajeev, C. Dheeraj Rajan, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Libin Varghese


Tags: