Top Court Flags Public Safety Concerns, Issues Notice on Alcohol in Deceptive Fruit Style Packaging
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
20, May,2026-New Delhi: In a significant move to address public health concerns, the Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Union Government and various State Excise Departments regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the sale of alcoholic beverages in packaging that deceptively resembles fruit juice products.
The petition highlights the alarming potential for increased underage drinking, drunk driving incidents, and public consumption facilitated by such misleading packaging.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, took cognizance of the submissions made by Advocate Vipin Nair, representing the petitioner, Community Against Drunken Driving (CADD). Advocate Nair underscored the critical absence of prominent health warnings on these alcohol products, a stark contrast to regulations governing tobacco.
He pointed out specific examples of packaging, such as “Bunty Premium Vodka” and “Chelli Mango Vodka,” adorned with fruit imagery, which he argued are designed to mislead consumers, particularly younger individuals.
Chief Justice Surya Kant orally remarked on the deceptive nature of such packaging, stating, “This is very deceptive.” The Court’s observation underscores the gravity of the issue and the potential for widespread public harm.
“Moreover, these tetra packs have attractive packaging with vivid colors but do not have prominent health warnings like in the case of cigarettes, which would dissuade people from drunken driving and responsible drinking. The warning, if any, is only in small fine print, which would be hardly visible or discernible to a consumer.”
CADD’s PIL seeks a uniform national policy to prohibit the sale of alcohol in “inconspicuous packaging” like tetra packs and sachets.
Furthermore, it calls for amendments to existing excise laws to mandate bottling in glass containers or other distinctly identifiable receptacles, thereby eliminating the ambiguity created by current packaging practices.
“Portable packages would encourage people to carry it to public spots which would in turn increase the chances of public nuisance.
Such packaging will not even be detected by security personnel easily and hence, it may encourage public consumption, including in a moving vehicle Apart from this, the environmental harm caused by plastic sachets, PET bottles, and Tetra Pak exacerbates the problem further. It is nearly impossible to recycle these bottles and there is no reason to encourage them apart from increasing revenues.
On the other hand, Tetra Paks signals the consumer that its contents are affordable and easy to consume, much like shampoos in sachets. As such, Tetra Paks only contribute to signaling the young impressionable minds to purchase and consumer more.”
The petition elaborates on how the portable and concealable nature of these packages enables discreet consumption in public spaces, including educational institutions, parks, and moving vehicles.
It also contends that the lower production costs associated with such packaging make alcohol more affordable and accessible, potentially to underage consumers and commercial vehicle operators.
Concerns were also raised regarding the ease with which lightweight, unbreakable tetra packs and sachets facilitate illicit smuggling across state borders, complicating detection efforts by law enforcement agencies.
CADD, an organization actively campaigning against drunk driving and underage drinking since 2001, also brought to the Court’s attention its previous petition seeking mandatory age verification at alcohol sale points, on which notice had already been issued.
This is not the first instance where the Supreme Court has expressed reservations about alcohol sales in tetra packs.
Earlier, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant had voiced similar concerns, noting the easy accessibility for school children. In a related development, the Court had also permitted a PIL petitioner to present concerns regarding tetra pack alcohol sales before the Uttar Pradesh Excise Commissioner.
Case Reference: COMMUNITY AGAINST DRUNKEN DRIVING Vs THE UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 475/2026
