Breweries must initiate rigorous age verification protocols: Karnataka High Court

"The protection of youth is not merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative," said Justice M Nagaprasanna.

The Karnataka High Court has said that breweries and similar establishments must initiate rigorous age verification protocols, be it through Aadhar or other valid identification, at threshold of entry and further verification should follow, when liquor is ordered by persons who appear youthful or underage.

“Age verification cannot be a perfunctory ritual; it must be a living practice by display of conspicuous warnings by insistence upon documentary proof. When minors gain entry and order for intoxicants, whether overtly served or covertly consumed, the Management of such Establishments cannot show their hands off, in indifference. The protection of youth is not merely a statutory mandate, it is a moral imperative. The Managements of the places would be held accountable for any lapses,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while refusing to quash proceedings against V Chitti Babu, a partner in Legacy Brewing Company, a brewery joint in Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru.

The matter pertains to the death of a 15-year-old boy on January 31, 2026. The boy had been to Legacy Brewing Company in Rajarajeshwarinagar along with his friends. Later in the night, the boy jumped to his death from the 7th floor apartment in Banashankari 5th stage.

During the investigation, the police found that the boy had stayed in the brewery up to 6.30 pm and the post-mortem report indicated that he had consumed alcohol. The police registered a suo motu FIR for offences under section 36(1)(g) of the Excise Act and section 77 of the Juvenile Act.

Challenging this, the petitioner contended that the pub staff had served only food, a water bottle and that the boys had brought liquor in the bag surreptitiously and had drunk. On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that while it is an admitted fact that the boy was at the brewery till 6.30 pm, whether he has gone to the house directly or not is a matter of investigation.

The court noted that section 36 (1)(g) of the Excise Act is not confined merely to the act of sale, it extends equally to tolerance and permission, passive or active. “The legislative intent is clear. A licensee having been entrusted with the privilege of dealing in intoxicants bears a corresponding and higher duty of vigilance. The law casts upon him, not merely an obligation to refrain from serving minors, but also a duty to ensure that minors do not remain in the premises where intoxicants are sold or manufactured,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court also pointed out that section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act declares that whoever gives or causes to be given to any child intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug, tobacco product or a psychotropic substance, except under medical prescription, the rigour of the provision is unmistakable.

“If minors could carry intoxicants inside, evade detection and consume them unchecked demands scrutiny. The scrutiny - investigation. Investigation therefore becomes imperative to ascertain how underage individuals gained entry without age verification; whether any mechanism existed to scrutinize identification of documents; whether supervisory safeguards were in place and whether statutory obligations cast upon the licensee were discharged with the vigilance the law demands,” the court said.