The Bombay High Court on Friday questioned the Maharashtra government's decision to impose a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol across Pune district during the Ganesh festival, asking why Pune had been singled out when Mumbai and other parts of the state faced no comparable restriction.
A division bench comprising chief justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and justice Advait Sethna was hearing petitions filed by associations representing hotel owners and wine shop operators against the order issued by Pune collector. The prohibition is scheduled to remain in force from 14th September to 26 September 2026, covering the 12-day Ganesh festival period.
The bench questioned the rationale for imposing a district-wide prohibition on licensed establishments and indicated that the administration should reconsider the order.
"What is the rationale behind choosing only Pune? We deprecate such practice. This is a stigma on Pune residents. What are you trying to portray that only people in Pune behave badly after drinking?" the bench remarked during the hearing.
The Court acknowledged the administration's responsibility to maintain law and order and prevent public nuisance during the festival. However, it questioned whether these concerns could justify a blanket prohibition affecting all consumers and licensed businesses throughout the district.
The bench observed that it could not be presumed that every person who consumes alcohol would create a disturbance in public.
Chief justice Tripathi also remarked on the possible consequences for habitual drinkers if alcohol remained unavailable for several days. "They will flood hospitals if they don't get to drink for 10 days," the chief justice said, referring to potential health problems among regular drinkers who stop drinking abruptly.
The observation came as the Court examined whether a complete prohibition was a proportionate response to the administration's concerns about public order during the festival.
The Curt's comments did not dispute the government's authority to take measures to prevent nuisance and maintain public safety. Instead, the focus was on whether a complete prohibition across Pune, without similar restrictions elsewhere in Maharashtra, could be justified.
The petitions were filed by businesses that would be directly affected by the prohibition, including hotels and licensed wine shops.
The bench directed the lawyer appearing for the Pune collector to obtain instructions from the administration on whether the order would be withdrawn. It said that if the restriction was not withdrawn, the court would consider passing an appropriate order.
The challenge comes shortly before the Ganesh festival begins on 14 September 2026. Pune witnesses large public gatherings, processions and celebrations during the festival, prompting extensive security and law-and-order arrangements.
The administration had cited public safety and law-and-order concerns while imposing the dry period. The High Court, however, questioned whether such concerns could justify treating an entire district differently from the rest of Maharashtra.
The geographical scope of the prohibition remained a key concern for the bench. The judges questioned why a restriction imposed in the name of maintaining public order during Ganeshotsav should apply specifically to Pune.
The bench said such an order could create an impression that Pune residents were more likely than people elsewhere in the state to cause trouble after consuming alcohol.
The Court also distinguished between taking action against individuals who violate the law or create a nuisance and imposing a blanket prohibition on all licensed traders and consumers.
The order, if it remains in force, would prevent hotels, restaurants, bars and wine shops across Pune from selling alcohol during the restricted period despite their holding valid licences.
The bench asked the state and Pune administration to respond on whether the prohibition would be withdrawn. If the order remains in place, the Court indicated that it would consider the legal challenge and issue appropriate directions.
Congress Seeks JPC Probe into Alleged ₹10,000 Crore Tax Evasion through 3,260 Political Parties
Moneylife Digital Team
11 September 2026
The Congress has alleged a ₹10,000 crore tax evasion racket involving 3,260 registered unrecognised political parties (RUPPs) and demanded a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) probe into what it called a major political donation...
Cannot Be Taken Lightly: Supreme Court Condemns Harassment of 14-year-old Girl Linked to CJP Protest
Debayan Roy (Bar
and
Bench)
10 September 2026
The Supreme Court on Thursday took strong exception to vigilantes browbeating and harassing a 14-year-old girl who had taken part in the Cockroach Janta Party protests in Delhi's Jantar Mantar.
A bench of Chief Justice of India...
Greater Noida Executive Magistrate Suspended over ₹5 Lakh Bond Notice to Student, SC Told
Moneylife Digital Team
10 September 2026
The Greater Noida executive magistrate who issued a show-cause notice requiring a Gautam Buddha University student to furnish a personal bond of ₹5 lakh in connection with an alleged campaign to mobilise students for a protest has...
Arrogance: Supreme Court Initiates Contempt Case Against Yatharth Hospital for Ignoring Court Notice in EWS Case
Ritu Yadav (Bar
and
Bench)
10 September 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday initiated formal contempt of court proceedings against Yatharth Hospital for filing an “ex facie false” affidavit claiming that it had not received a notice issued by the Court. [Union of India v....
