Indian court blocks Pernod Ricard from resuming Delhi liquor sales

A Delhi court has kept Pernod Ricard out of one of its most important Indian markets, deepening a legal fight that now stretches across years and underlines the risks multinationals face in India’s licensing and enforcement regime.

The Delhi High Court dismissed Pernod Ricard’s plea on May 29, with Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passing the order and a detailed judgment still awaited. The dispute centers on an L-1 wholesale liquor licence in Delhi, which would allow the French spirits company to resume selling brands such as Absolut vodka and Chivas Regal in the capital. The court’s refusal was tied to pending criminal proceedings linked to the Delhi excise policy case and a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.

For Pernod, the commercial stakes are high. India is the company’s biggest market by volume globally, and it recorded $2.9 billion in India sales last year. New Delhi typically accounts for about 5% of those sales, a meaningful slice in a country where the alcohol market is worth roughly $65 billion. Being shut out of the capital for about three years has limited brand visibility and blocked access to a market that normally helps drive premium spirits sales.

The latest ruling followed repeated setbacks with local authorities. Delhi officials had already rejected Pernod’s licence request multiple times, including a fourth rejection in February 2026, before the company launched a fresh challenge in the Delhi High Court in March. Reuters also reported that the Delhi government opposed the licence on public-interest grounds, reinforcing how closely commercial access can be tied to unresolved regulatory and criminal proceedings.

Pernod India has said it rejects any suggestion of wrongdoing and is pursuing legal remedies. The company has argued that it should not be disqualified without conviction, but the court upheld Delhi’s position that pending cases still made it ineligible under the excise rules. For foreign investors watching India’s consumer market, the case is a reminder that distribution rights can hinge not only on demand and branding, but on the slow-moving overlap between regulation, taxation and enforcement.