The Kerala government’s move to prolong bar operating hours has stirred a significant political and institutional debate, facing backlash from Opposition parties and influential Church bodies. The decision, issued by the Excise Department, extends bar timings from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. to 10 a.m. to 12 midnight, allowing two additional hours of daily sales. Allegations suggest that the decision was made without thorough Cabinet discussion or consultation within the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF), reminiscent of past criticisms over agreements with the Centre.
Official sources reveal that the decision was made in response to longstanding appeals from bar owners. Despite 11 previous requests over five years, the government had consistently denied extensions until now. The sudden approval, especially close to elections, has led the Opposition to question whether revenue generation, rather than policy reform, is the primary motivation behind the extension.
As of January 31, 2025, Kerala boasts 847 bar licenses alongside 289 outlets managed by the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (BEVCO). Reports from the Excise department suggest that in a state heavily reliant on liquor revenue, the extra operating hours could notably enhance the state’s finances.
The proposed liquor policy for 2025-26 had already recommended relaxing dry day regulations in specific tourism zones. It proposed permitting three-star and higher hotels to serve liquor on dry days during weddings and international conferences, subject to prior approval and payment of special fees. Additionally, there are hints that select bars in tourist areas might be allowed to operate until 3 a.m. during business tourism events.
The Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council (KCBC) strongly opposes the decision, with its Temperance Commission labeling it a hasty policy shift and demanding its immediate reversal, cautioning against what they view as an excise-friendly policy enacted without Cabinet consultation. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church has also called for a rollback, alleging that the guise of tourism is being used to encourage increased alcohol consumption.
Critics argue that the timing of the decision, nearing elections, has fueled public skepticism and put the ruling front on the defensive. However, the government asserts that the revised policy seeks to balance economic recovery, tourism promotion, and regulatory control while ensuring ongoing revenue stability for the State.
