The High Court of Kerala has set aside multiple police notices that sought to restrict the operating hours of a five-star classified bar hotel in Ernakulam, ruling that law enforcement cannot curtail legally permitted business activities based solely on speculative fears regarding public order . Justice Murali Purushothaman held that while the police are empowered to regulate public safety and noise levels, they cannot arbitrarily impose a blanket ban on legitimate entertainment activities during hours sanctioned by the state government.

The dispute arose after the state government issued a notification in February 2026 amending the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 . This amendment allowed FL-3 licensed hotels with a five-star classification to operate for an additional three hours beyond the standard midnight closing time, provided they pay an annual rental fee of ₹5,00,000. The petitioner, Mahadevan, who holds such a license, complied with the financial requirements and received authorization from the Deputy Commissioner of Excise to remain open until 3:00 a.m. However, local police authorities, including the Station House Officer of Kadavanthra and the Assistant Commissioner of Police , subsequently issued notices directing the hotel to cease operations by midnight and specifically prohibited the hosting of disc jockey (DJ) parties after 11:00 p.m.

The court rejected the police’s stance that the prevalence of criminal incidents—ranging from drug use to public disturbances—necessitated such restrictions. In a clear assertion of the limits of police power, the bench underscored that public interest does not justify the total overriding of fundamental commercial rights without sufficient legal basis. As the court observed in its judgment: "The mere possibility of criminal activities cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient justification for imposing restrictions under the Kerala Police Act on the extended operating hours of the FL-3 hotel permitted under the Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 2026 ."

The police had contended that their directives were issued under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 , citing sections related to public safety and the prevention of nuisance. They argued that DJ events created high-decibel disturbances, attracted large crowds, and were linked to illegal activities, thereby necessitating a strict 11:00 p.m. cutoff. The court, however, distinguished between the regulation of noise pollution and the absolute curtailment of business hours. It noted that while the police have the authority to manage noise levels under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 , they lack the jurisdiction to unilaterally shorten the operating hours granted by the state’s excise department.

Addressing the police's argument that such establishments contribute to law and order challenges, the bench emphasized that enforcement agencies are tasked with addressing specific illegal acts rather than prohibiting entire business operations. "If any offence is committed by any person, it is for the police to investigate and apprehend the accused. The police can also prevent commission of offences," the judgment stated, adding that using a sledgehammer approach to curb potential minor nuisances contradicts the state's responsibility to foster a climate for tourism and business.

The ruling reaffirms the constitutional position regarding trade and professional activities under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India . While this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, the court clarified that such restrictions must be backed by evidence and necessity, rather than apprehension. The court’s reasoning also aligned with previous judicial sentiments expressed in cases like Ravikumar R. v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sakthikulangara , which established that the mere presence of anti-social elements in an area is not a sufficient ground to force a legitimate business to close its doors prematurely.

Regarding the specific issue of DJ parties, the court refused to view the activity as inherently illicit, noting that it is neither a prohibited art nor a prohibited craft. It held that while those residing in the vicinity of such establishments have a right to live free from noise pollution—a facet of the right to life under Article 21 —the remedy lies in enforcing ambient noise standards rather than banning the event itself. Should high-decibel music violate these standards, the authorities are directed to act strictly in accordance with the Noise Pollution Rules and the Kerala Police Act, specifically following the procedures for issuing preventive directions.

The court’s final orders are comprehensive: the challenged police notices have been set aside, confirming that the petitioner’s establishment is entitled to function until 3:00 a.m. as per its excise license, except on statutory dry days . Furthermore, the ruling serves as a cautionary directive to the police, clarifying that any attempt to use Section 79 of the Kerala Police Act to regulate public assemblies cannot result in a permanent or indefinite prohibition. The court emphasized that if the state government wishes to impose different operating limitations for these establishments, it must frame new, formal rules rather than relying on the discretion of local police officers.

The judgment concludes by placing the burden of maintaining public order squarely on the police’s ability to conduct targeted enforcement. Instead of ordering the hotel to close early, the police are encouraged to remain vigilant in detecting criminal conduct within such premises, noting that an open and functional establishment can actually assist law enforcement in identifying and apprehending individuals involved in unlawful acts. By prioritizing a balanced approach, the court has ensured that the operational extension granted to five-star hotels remains a viable commercial benefit while maintaining the state's mandate to control public nuisance and crime through targeted, lawful interventions.