SC Stays Rajasthan HC Order to Remove Liquor Shops in 500 Metres from National, State Highways
NEW DELHI, Jan 19: Even while acknowledging the increasing incidents of highway accidents reportedly caused by drunken driving, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the operation of a Rajasthan High Court order directing the State Government to remove 1,102 liquor outlets located within 500 metres of highways within a period of two months.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the concerns expressed by the High Court were “absolutely genuine,” the sweeping directions merited closer judicial scrutiny. “The concern shown here is absolutely genuine…the fact is that many deaths have indeed taken place. Some decision or policy will have to be put in place to save lives,” the Bench remarked.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by Ram Swaroop Yadav, who contended that the High Court had issued its directions without affording affected stakeholders an opportunity to be heard. He further submitted that the order had failed to take into account binding judicial precedents permitting the operation of liquor vends within municipal limits and certain local bodies.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mr Yadav, argued that the High Court’s November 24, 2025, order would have serious adverse consequences if allowed to operate. He submitted that while the High Court was seized of a matter arising from a single village in Sujangarh, it went on to issue directions with State-wide effect without hearing other affected parties. “The judge has passed an order for the entire State without hearing anybody. The State is supporting me,” he told the Bench.
Appearing for the Rajasthan government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta flagged the practical difficulties in enforcing the High Court’s directions, highlighting that a significant number of cities and towns in the State lie along national and State highways. He submitted that a blanket enforcement of the 500-metre restriction would, in effect, remove liquor vends from vast urban areas. He also pointed out that in cities such as Chandigarh, which are located directly along highways, all liquor vends would have to be removed.
Accordingly, the Bench issued notice on the appeal and stayed the operation of the High Court’s directions until further orders. It, however, clarified that it was not discounting the serious public safety concerns relating to highway accidents and deaths associated with alcohol consumption.
Justice Mehta also flagged the prevalence of surrogate advertising by liquor outlets along highways, observing that billboards often carry indirect references to the sale of alcohol. “They put up advertisements saying that liquor is available 500 metres away,” he said.
Echoing this concern, the Solicitor General noted that since direct hoardings advertising liquor vends are prohibited in some States, advertisers have turned to indirect signage. “Now, the only hoarding is an arrow. Those who know, know what the arrow means,” he said.
In its order, the High Court had come down heavily on the State government for turning highways into “liquor-friendly corridors.” A Division Bench comprising Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Sanjeet Purohit had ordered the removal of all liquor shops falling within the restricted limit of 500 metres from a national or State highway, within two months, irrespective of them falling within the jurisdiction of any municipal areas or local self-governing bodies.
“This court is of the firm view that any liquor shop situated within the restricted limit of 500 metres from a National or State Highway shall not remain operational. The respondents are directed to remove or relocate all liquor shops falling within the prohibited zone, irrespective of whether they fall under municipal areas, local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities. It shall be open for the respondents to shift or relocate the said 1,102 liquor shops to conforming locations beyond 500 metres within a period of two months,” the High Court had said.
The directions were issued while hearing a 2023 public interest litigation petition (PIL) filed by Churu residents Kanhaiya Lal Soni and Manoj Nai, alleging violations of the Excise Act and its rules by liquor vends operating along highways. The High Court had also relied on the top court’s 2016 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, which had held that no liquor outlet could be located within 500 metres of the outer edge of a national or State highway.
However, the top court had clarified the following year that the restriction did not extend to licensed liquor vends operating within municipal limits, and left it to State governments to determine whether the embargo should apply to areas governed by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities.
(Manas Dasgupta)
