Kerala HC Sets Aside DJ Curfew Notices At 5-Star Bar, Says Mere Crime Fears Can’t Override Its Licensed 3 AM Hours

The petitioner, a five-star hotel licensee holding an FL-3 licence, obtained permission under the amended Foreign Liquor Rules to keep the hotel open until 3:00 a.m. during the 2026–27 financial year, on payment of an additional annual rental of ₹5,00,000, subject to closure at midnight on the eve of a statutory dry day.

Police notices directed the hotel not to operate beyond midnight and prohibited DJ parties after 11:00 p.m.; an FIR was also registered following an alleged DJ event continuing until 3:00 a.m.

The petitioner challenged the notices, arguing that they interfered with the operating hours authorised by the Excise Department.

The police relied on public-safety concerns, including noise, alleged drug use, criminal incidents and crowd-related disturbances.

Rule 28(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, as amended in 2026, permits qualifying five-star and above FL-3 hotels to remain open for three additional hours beyond midnight, subject to the statutory dry-day exception.

Sections 77–79 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, respectively empower regulation of noise, specified measures to prevent violence, and regulation of public assemblies; Section 79 notifications cannot remain in force for more than fifteen days unless their validity is extended as provided by the Act.

Rules 3, 5 and 8 of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, regulate ambient noise, restrict sound-producing instruments at night subject to specified exceptions, and empower the competent authority to issue preventive directions where warranted.

The Court relied on *Jacob v. Superintendent of Police* and *Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India* for the principle that the right to live free from noise pollution is protected by Article 21 and is not displaced by the use of sound equipment.

It also relied on *Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka*, *Ravikumar R. v. Sub Inspector of Police* and *S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police* in addressing regulatory control and the limits on restricting lawful business based merely on apprehended disorder.

The Court distinguished the hotel’s authorised operating hours from the regulation of noise and unlawful conduct within its premises.

Noise restrictions remained enforceable: where night-time rules or applicable ambient noise standards were breached, the competent authority could issue directions under Section 77 or Rule 8, following the prescribed procedure.

However, the police had not shown a sufficient basis for imposing a blanket 11:00 p.m. cut-off on entertainment activities during hours in which the hotel was authorised to operate.

The possibility of crime associated with DJ events did not, by itself, justify curtailing those authorised hours; the police could instead take lawful action against particular offences and regulate traffic where necessary.

The Court also held that Sections 77–79 did not support an indefinite restriction of the kind imposed by the notices.

The police could not curtail the authorised operating hours without sufficient grounds, but could take action under the applicable noise-control provisions and enforce the law against criminal activity.

The Court further held that a Section 79 order could remain in force for no more than fifteen days unless extended in accordance with the Act.