‘Fan Of Whiskey’: Jovial Exchange Between CJI Chandrachud, Senior Lawyer During Supreme Court Hearing

A recent Supreme Court hearing tackling the complex issue of industrial alcohol production and its jurisdictional control took a “spirited” turn as Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi engaged in a jovial conversation.

According to an India Today report, Dwivedi began by drawing attention to his vibrant, Holi-inspired hairdo as he took his place before the bench.

“Apologies for my colourful grey hair,” Dwivedi said, blaming the hues on overzealous Holi celebrations and grandchildren. “This is the disadvantage of having too many children and grandchildren around. You can’t save yourself.”

Chief Justice Chandrachud, with a smile, countered, “Nothing to do with the alcohol?”

In a candid response, Dwivedi chuckled and confessed, “It does. Holi means partly alcohol… and I must confess… I am a fan of whiskey.”

During the hearing, Dwivedi elaborated on his love for scotch and when he almost got in trouble for it.

“I prefer single malt whiskey. I went to Edinburgh, which is the Mecca of single-malt whiskey. I wanted to put some ice cubes and the waiter was offended, [saying] that you have to drink it neat and you cannot mix anything. There is a separate glass for it. The first time I came to know about it,” he said.

The banter prompted laughter through the courtroom as the nine-judge Constitution Bench.

However, amidst the laughter, the Constitution Bench remained focused on the central question of whether “industrial alcohol” should be treated similarly to traditional intoxicating liquors in terms of regulatory control.

Dwivedi, representing Uttar Pradesh, argued passionately that all forms of alcohol, whether industrial or recreational, should fall under the purview of state regulation.

The bench, while grappling with the legal intricacies of the matter, didn’t shy away from injecting humor into the proceedings. One judge humorously remarked on the revenue-generating potential of intoxicating drinks, stating, “Whether intoxicating drinks bring joy to human beings or not, it should bring joy to state revenue.”

Another judge joined in the banter, proposing the idea of using a material exhibit to illustrate the differences between various types of alcohol—a suggestion that elicited further laughter from the courtroom.