Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan High Court Order To Remove Liquor Vends Within 500 Mtrs Of Highways

The Supreme Court today stayed the Rajasthan High Court order which directed removal or relocation of all liquor shops falling within 500 metres of a state or national highway.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for State). Notably, the SG was supporting the petitioner in this case.

During the hearing, Rohatgi argued that the issue before the High Court pertained to village Sujangarh, but the order was passed qua the entire state without hearing anybody.

In response, Justice Mehta remarked, "the High Court exercises jurisdiction throughout the State". Rohatgi countered that the impugned order is contrary to a Supreme Court order, which did not prohibit licensed establishments in municipal areas. "The judge still says there will be a ban, that can't be", remarked Rohatgi.

At this point, Justice Nath commented, "judges can do everything".

Rohatgi replied, "He is the seniormost judge in Jodhpur, so he must be thinking that I can [bypass the Supreme Court judgment]...".

Interjecting Rohatgi, the SG said, "no, no, not that, don't say that". Justice Mehta also pointed that the matter was indeed sensitive, considering the number of deaths that had taken place. The judge remarked that the concern behind the High Court order was "absolutely genuine" and in future, the State can take steps to ensure there are no liquor vends on highways.

In an interesting exchange, the SG also highlighted "Indian ingenuity" to the Court, while pointing out that since putting up hoardings about liquor vends is not permissible in some states, people have started putting only arrows giving directions. "Those who know, know what it means", he said.

Rohatgi added that there are also "shadow advertisements" about soda and water which are "both required" (alongwith liquor). Smiling, Justice Mehta remarked, "We don't know...atleast I don't know!"

To recap, in December, the High Court dealt with a petition that raised the issue of location of liquor shops adjacent to highways. The plea highlighted a steep rise in the cases of drunk driving in Rajasthan during 2025.

Taking serious note of the increasing number of accidents on highways on account of alcohol misuse, the High Court directed the State to remove or relocate all the liquor shops falling within the restricted limit of 500 meters from a National or State Highway, within 2 months, irrespective of them falling under any municipal areas, local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities.

Challenging this order, the present petition was filed.

What did the High Court say?

A Division Bench of Dr Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu in which alarming scale of accidents attributable to over-speeding and intake of alcohol was recorded. In this case, the top Court had directed that no liquor shops shall be situated within 500 meters of outer edge of a national or state highways.

However, subsequently, the Court clarified that the order did not prohibit licensed establishments within municipal areas. Discretion was given to State Government to determine whether the same principle should be extended to areas covered by local self-governing bodies and statutory development authorities.

In this backdrop, the High Court came down heavily upon the State for misusing the limited discretionary leverage granted under a Supreme Court precedent, to grant permissions to liquor shops along the National and State Highways, and making a “mockery of the discretion conferred”.

An affidavit submitted by the Excise Department revealed that under the garb of discretion provided by the Supreme Court, the State had permitted operation of 1102 liquor shops on National and State highways in Rajasthan by treating those as falling within municipal areas or local bodies, that contributes Rs. 2221.78 crores of revenue.

While expressing extreme concern, the Court opined that such an approach defeated the intention of the Supreme Court ruling, and held that, “The constitutional objective of safeguarding public life and safety cannot be subordinated to revenue considerations, and a careful balance must be struck wherein fiscal interests do not override the paramount requirement of protecting human life and ensuring road safety.”

Underscoring the fact that alcohol misuse and reckless driving had reached dangerous proportions to the extent of posing threat of right to life under Article 21, the Court held that the State miserably failed to discharge its duty and shattered the fabric of safeguarding contemplated in the Supreme Court judgment. Accordingly, the State was directed to remove or relocate all the liquor shops falling within the restricted limit of 500 meters from a National or State highway, within 2 months.

Further, it was directed to be ensured that no hoardings, signs or advertisements relating to availability of liquor were visible from the National or State highways even while relocating the shops.

Case Title: RAJA RAM Versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., Diary No. 2149-2026