SC stays Rajasthan HC order to remove liquor shops within 500 m of highways

THe sublime margaret court on mon stayed the functioning of a Rajasthan heights Court order that had directed the removal or relocation of all liquor outlets located within 500 metres of national and state highways across the state, even as it acknowledged the gravity of rising road fatalities and the menace of drunken driving.A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that the concerns expressed by the high court were “absolutely right” but noted that the sweeping directions warranted closer scrutiny, particularly in light of earlier Supreme Court rulings that had relaxed the original prohibition in certain circumstances.“The fact is that many deaths have indeed taken place. The issue is very sensitive. Some decisions or policy will have to be put in place to save lives,” observed the bench, while admitting a petition challenging the high court’s November 24, 2025 order.The top court issued notice in the matter and ordered that the effect of the Rajasthan High Court’s directions shall remain stayed until further orders.The petition was filed by Ram Swaroop Yadav, who contended that the high court had passed the directions in a public interest litigation without hearing affected parties and without accounting for binding Supreme Court precedents that permit liquor vends in municipal areas and certain local bodies.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that the order would have drastic consequences if allowed to operate. “In a PIL, this order has been passed without giving any opportunity to any party. We have challenged this order,” Rohatgi submitted.The Rajasthan government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supported the plea for suspending the high court’s order, flagging practical difficulties in its implementation. Mehta pointed out that several cities and towns in Rajasthan are located directly on national or state highways, and a blanket enforcement of the 500-metre rule would effectively eliminate liquor vends across large urban areas.“The problem is there are certain cities which are directly on highways and therefore all vends will have to go,” Mehta said, adding that a similar situation would arise in places such as Chandigarh.While staying the order, the bench made it clear that it was not discounting the seriousness of the issue. It noted that highway accidents and deaths linked to alcohol consumption remain a major public safety concern, and emphasised the need for a balanced policy response.The Rajasthan High Court’s order, passed by a division bench, had come down heavily on the state government for what it described as an “alarming rise in fatal road accidents” and for turning highways into “liquor-friendly corridors”.Also Read:Excise dept tightens monitoring of liquor vends across GurugramThe high court had directed the state to remove or relocate 1,102 liquor outlets situated within 500 metres of national and state highways within two months, irrespective of whether they fell under municipal limits, local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities. It had also barred any signboards, hoardings or advertisements promoting liquor from being visible to highway users.Relying on accident data and recent fatal crashes in Jaipur’s Harmada area and Phalodi, which together claimed at least 28 lives, the high court held that easy access to alcohol along accident-prone stretches posed a direct threat to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also expressed concern that revenue considerations—citing the state’s affidavit showing liquor revenue of over ₹2,200 crore—were being prioritised over public safety.However, the Supreme Court’s intervention on Monday brings the focus back to its own evolving jurisprudence on liquor vends along highways. In its 2016 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu Vs K Balu, the court had imposed a blanket 500-metre prohibition. That embargo was subsequently relaxed through a series of orders allowing states to permit licensed establishments within municipal areas and certain local bodies, and leaving it to state governments to take a contextual decision for development authorities. These clarifications, the court has repeatedly held, were meant to balance road safety concerns with federal autonomy and ground realities.