Today, On 19th Jan, The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the Rajasthan High Court’s order to remove or relocate all liquor shops within 500 meters of National and State Highways. The order affects 1,102 shops, irrespective of their municipal or local jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Rajasthan High Court’s order that mandated the removal or relocation of all liquor shops located within 500 meters of National and State Highways, affecting 1,102 shops, regardless of their municipal or local jurisdiction.
In November 2025, the High Court also instructed the State Government to ensure that no advertisements or signboards indicating the presence of liquor shops are visible from these highways, even during the relocation process beyond the stipulated distance of 500 meters, emphasizing strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives.
The High Court expressed deep concern over the alarming increase in fatal road accidents in Rajasthan, resulting in the tragic and preventable loss of lives.
A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a notice regarding a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Ram Swarup, who has been running a liquor shop for about two years.
The SLP notes that,
“The present location was also earmarked by the State, and it is not on the volition of the Petitioner.”
It also mentions that substantial payments have been made to the State Government and investments made for the operation of the liquor shop, requesting that the license remain valid until March 31, 2026.
However, the renewal of the license would depend on decisions made by the State Government regarding the relocation of liquor shops, in consideration of the High Court’s orders.
The Supreme Court was informed that an abrupt closure of the shop within the licensing period would negatively impact the petitioner, who would have to shut down the establishment without fault on his part.
The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu & Ors., previously issued pivotal directives prohibiting the issuance of licenses for liquor sales along National and State Highways within a 500-meter radius, with the aim of safeguarding public life and ensuring road safety under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It further clarified that this distance restriction could be relaxed to 220 meters for local bodies with populations of 20,000 or fewer, acknowledging demographic and developmental differences.
The petitioner in the SLP also referenced the decision in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ann, where the Supreme Court elaborated that its directives were not meant to restrict licensed liquor establishments located within municipal areas, focusing instead on regulating liquor accessibility along transport corridors.
The SLP argues that the High Court neglected several pertinent facts:
- Liquor vendors like the petitioner were set to be shut down without being granted an opportunity to be heard.
- There were no explicit violations of the Supreme Court’s orders on the part of the liquor vendors.
- The state’s failure to establish norms for municipal areas should not hold the current liquor vendors accountable.
The SLP contends that the High Court overlooked the absence of direct evidence linking alcohol consumption to accidents specifically on the National Highway, as multiple factors contribute to the rise in accidents.
Case Title: RAM SWAROOP YADAV vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
