Supreme Court Seeks UP Govt's Explanation For Reducing Minimum Distance Between Liquor Shops & Schools Fixed By SC Judgment

The Supreme Court recently observed that the Uttar Pradesh government's 2010 decision to reduce the minimum distance required between liquor shops and sensitive public places, appeared to overreach an earlier binding judgment of the Court fixing the minimum distance.

“We are prima facie of the view that the State of Uttar Pradesh has overreached the judgment of this Court and the High Court was in error in returning a contrary finding. We are conscious that such contra-finding is not subjected to challenge. This is because the respondent-institution's interest has been protected. However, we cannot stand by and allow any illegality to be continued. A binding judgment of this Court is sought to be made ineffective by a rule making authority without removing the basis thereof”, the Court observed.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih issued a suo motu notice to the State asking why the amended Rule 5(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops Rules, 1968, should not be struck down on the ground of legislative overreach.

“Since the matter has serious public interest at its core, we suo motu issue notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh to show cause why Rule 5(4) of the 1968 5 Rules (as amended) should not be struck down on the ground of legislative overreach, by filing a reply affidavit within seven days from date”, the Court stated.

The order was passed in civil appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a February 2, 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had struck down Rule 5(4) of the 1968 Rules as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008.

Though the Allahabad High Court had struck down the amendment, it had observed that the amendment did not amount to contempt of the Supreme Court's previous judgment which had fixed higher minimum distances. Disagreeing, the Supreme Court passed the present order.

In 2008, the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Ors. dealt with the interpretation of Rule 5(4) of the 1968 Rules, which bars licensing of liquor shops in “close proximity” to places of public resort, schools, hospitals, places of worship, factories, bazaars, and residential colonies.

In that case, the Allahabad High Court had fixed a minimum distance of 100 metres or approximately 300 feet for liquor shops. The Supreme Court had on appeal affirmed this standard, holding that the expression “close proximity” was vague and capable of misuse, and that fixing a concrete distance removed that ambiguity.

While the Court had disapproved the closure of shops without issuing notice to affected parties, it had unequivocally upheld the 100-metre or 300-feet distance as the correct interpretation of the rule.

In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that despite this binding interpretation, the State subsequently amended Rule 5(4) to reduce the minimum distance to 50 metres in municipal corporation areas and 75 metres in areas under municipal councils and Nagar Panchayats. The Court observed that, prima facie, the amendment sought to dilute the standard approved by the Supreme Court without removing the basis of its earlier judgment.

The Court suo motu issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and directed the State to file a reply affidavit within seven days.

The matter has been listed on February 5, 2026, for consideration of the State's explanation.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 3790/2011

Case Title – State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Bishop Johnson School and College & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order