Kerala HC sets aside 11 pm DJ cut-off for Kochi hotel licensed to stay open until 3 am
Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the mere possibility of crime cannot justify curbing hours the State allowed under its liquor rules, that a Section 79 order lasts at most fifteen days, and that the police may act against noise only under Section 77 or the Noise Pollution Rules.
A five-star bar hotel in Ernakulam paid the State Rs 5,00,000 for three extra hours of trading, until 3 am. Kochi police then told it that DJ nights must end at 11 pm. On 10 November 2026 the Kerala High Court set those police notices aside.
Justice Murali Purushothaman ruled that a possibility of crime is not enough to shorten hours the Government has permitted. He also held that the police are not left powerless: noise after dark can be controlled under the Kerala Police Act and the Noise Pollution Rules.
A three-hour extension and a hotel in dispute
The petitioner, Mahadevan, is the licensee of a five-star bar hotel at Ernakulam. His FL-3 licence renewal certificate is Ext. P2, and the State is the first respondent in his writ petition, WP(C) 17410/2026.
On 13 February 2026 the Government amended Rule 28(1) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. FL-3 bar hotels rated five star and above could stay open for an additional three hours from midnight, on an extra annual rental of Rs 5,00,000.
The explanatory note tied the change to meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions tourism and to destination weddings. The proviso carries a limit: on the eve of a statutory dry day the hotel must close at midnight.
The Deputy Commissioner of Excise granted the petitioner the extension for 2026-27 after he paid the fee. That order is Ext. P4 in the case.
Three notices and an FIR
The petitioner said the Station House Officer of Kadavanthra kept issuing notices. On 27 March 2026 one told the hotel manager to close by midnight and stop loudspeaker celebrations after 10 pm.
A notice of 30 March said DJ parties were being held regularly, with young men and women taking part, and that quarrels broke out amid narcotic use. It told the hotel to stop DJ parties until further orders.
On 28 April the Assistant Commissioner of Police wrote that all bars in the Central Sub-Division must close at midnight and stop DJ parties by 11 pm. An FIR under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 followed, alleging a DJ party until 3 am on 30 April in breach of the earlier notices.
The petitioner denied holding DJ parties and said he was only trading within Ext. P4. He pleaded Article 19(1)(g) and asked the court to quash the three notices, Exts. P5 to P7, and direct the police to let the hotel run as permitted.
The police case: noise, drugs and crowds
The Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam City, was added as a respondent and filed a statement. He said an FL-3 licence covers liquor and meals on the premises, not high-decibel DJ events or large gatherings.
Orders of 28 April and 16 May 2026, he said, were issued under Sections 77 to 79 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and barred DJ programmes after 11 pm. Their basis was a stakeholder meeting with DJ operators and reports from Station House Officers and the Special Branch.
He listed 27 criminal cases in Kochi linked to late-night events, including drug offences and crimes against women. He said Ext. P3 does not override the police duty to protect public order.
Mr Anand Kalyanakrishnan appeared for the petitioner and Mr P.A. Mohammed Shah, Additional Advocate General, for the State.
In reply the petitioner said it made no sense to allow DJ parties until 11 pm and bar them afterwards. He said nothing showed his hotel was involved in the listed cases, and that theatres and places of worship also draw late crowds.
The court's question
The court accepted that the petitioner’s entitlement to run until 3 am under Exts. P3 and P4 was not disputed in the Commissioner's statement. It then framed the point to decide:
“can restrictions be imposed on entertainment activities within the hotel premises, including DJ programmes, after 11:00 p.m. and during the additional three hours permitted beyond the normal closing time?” (para 9)
DJ parties are lawful; neighbours have rights
Justice Purushothaman began with what a DJ party is: a disc jockey playing recorded music live for an audience. DJing, he said, is neither a prohibited craft nor a prohibited art.
People at such a party have the right under Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms. The hotel owner has the right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on business, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
The court added a third right. People who live near a business are entitled under Article 21 to be free of noise pollution that harms health, peace and tranquillity.
Section 79 regulates, it does not ban
The court read Sections 77 and 79 of the Kerala Police Act in turn. Section 77 lets the District Police Chief regulate noise. Section 79 lets him permit, control and regulate public assemblies for law and order or public safety.
Section 79, the judge said, is a power to permit, control and regulate, and not a power to impose an indefinite prohibition. An order under it cannot stay in force beyond fifteen days from proclamation, and only the Government can extend that period.
On that footing the court held that Exts. P5 and P6, issued by the Station House Officer, were without jurisdiction.
Where police can act: the noise rules
The court then dealt with noise. Rule 5(2) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 bars loudspeakers and other sound-producing instruments at night, between 10 pm and 6 am, except in closed premises used for communication within, or in a public emergency.
Rule 5(5) caps the peripheral noise of a private sound system at 5 dB(A) above the ambient standard for the area. Rule 8 lets the designated authority issue written directions to control noise, and a Government order of 8 November 2011 names Commissioners of Police and Superintendents among those authorities.
The court relied on its own decision in Jacob v. Superintendent of Police and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India. The willingness of an audience to hear loud music, the judge said, does not justify exposing neighbours to it against their wishes.
He held that where night-time restrictions or area noise standards are broken, the Commissioner can issue preventive directions under Section 77 or Rule 8. The procedures in those provisions must be followed.
Crime fears cannot shorten licensed hours
The Additional Advocate General had pointed to criminal incidents around DJ parties. Justice Purushothaman examined the basis of the restriction. The police already allow DJ parties until 11 pm, and the dispute concerns only the hours after that.
If crime accompanies such parties, he said, it is hard to see how an 11 pm cut-off would stop it. There was no apparent reason to presume crime would end before midnight or rise after it.
He put the holding in these terms:
“The mere possibility of criminal activities cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient justification” (para 19)
If the police believe crime is happening under cover of DJ parties, he added, they may take stringent action under the law. If the Government wants exceptions to the extended hours on public order grounds, it must frame rules for them.
Supreme Court and High Court precedents
The court cited the Supreme Court in Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka, which weighed performers’ livelihood against security concerns and accepted regulation. On that footing the court held that, until the Government frames rules, the police cannot curtail permitted hours without sufficient grounds.
It also referred to a Kerala High Court decision, Ravikumar R. v. Sub Inspector of Police. That case held a hotel could not be ordered shut after 11 pm because anti-social elements visited, when no offence was alleged against its owner.
A Madras High Court decision, S. Gunaraja v. Commissioner of Police, was also reproduced. It said police cannot close an eatery nightly on the apprehension of a law and order problem.
Burn not your house
Applying those cases, Justice Purushothaman said the police cannot, on an apprehension alone, compel closure before the time fixed in Ext. P4. It is their job, he said, to act against anyone using drugs or breaking the law.
He borrowed a proverb for the point:
“Burn not your house to fright away the mice.” (para 21)
On crowds, the judge said any traffic disruption is for the police to control under Section 61 of the Kerala Police Act, not by forcing the hotel to close early.
Order
The writ petition was disposed of on 10 November 2026. Exts. P5 to P7 are set aside. The hotel may function for three additional hours after the permissible closing time, until 3 am, during 2026-27, except on the eve of a statutory dry day, when it must stop at midnight.
Until the Government frames rules prescribing exceptions to the extended hours under the Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 2026, the police cannot curtail those hours contrary to the permission granted, absent sufficient grounds. The possibility of crime alone is not a sufficient ground.
Where high-decibel music breaks the night-time restrictions of Rule 5(2) or the area noise standards, the Police Commissioner may issue preventive directions under Section 77 of the Kerala Police Act or Rule 8 of the Noise Pollution Rules, following the prescribed procedure.
If the police believe crime, including narcotics use, is happening under the guise of DJ parties, they must take stringent action under the law. An order under Section 79 lasts no more than fifteen days and cannot be permanent. The judgment does not mention the FIR, Ext. P8.