Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Orders Removal of 1102 Liquor Shops from Highways, Slams State for Misusing SC Directions

JODHPUR: In a significant ruling aimed at curbing road accidents, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the state government to remove or relocate all 1102 liquor shops operating within 500 meters of National and State Highways. A Division Bench of Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit delivered a scathing judgment, holding that the state had made a "mockery" of Supreme Court directives by prioritizing revenue over the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court gave the state a two-month deadline to shift the identified shops to conforming locations and file a compliance affidavit.

Case Background: Public Safety vs. State Policy

The writ petition, filed by Kanhaiya Lal Soni and another, challenged the operation of liquor vends along highways in Rajasthan. The Court took judicial notice of the "alarming rise in fatal road accidents" and a nearly 8% increase in drunk driving cases in the state during 2025. Citing recent tragic accidents that claimed 28 lives in two days, the bench framed the issue as a "grave infraction of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21."

The core legal question revolved around the state's compliance with the landmark Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu (2016) , which had imposed a 500-meter ban on liquor shops along highways to enhance road safety.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners, represented by Advocate M.M. Dhera, argued that the State of Rajasthan was circumventing the Supreme Court's mandate. They contended that the state was misusing a limited discretion granted by the Apex Court—which allowed for exemptions in developed municipal areas—to permit over a thousand liquor shops to operate directly on highways. This, they argued, defeated the very purpose of the ban.

State's Defense: The State, through the Additional Advocate General, admitted in its affidavit that 1102 of the state's 7665 liquor shops are located on highways. It justified their operation by claiming these locations fall within "urban/municipal areas" or "local self-governing bodies," thereby qualifying for the exemption. The state also highlighted the significant revenue involved, amounting to ₹2221.78 crores from these shops, and cited its new "Auto Approval" policy as a measure for "ease of doing business."

Court's Scathing Rebuke and Reasoning

The High Court expressed "extreme concern" over the state's approach, finding that it had "miserably failed" in its duty to ensure road safety. The bench held that the state had shattered the safeguards established by the Supreme Court.

On Misuse of Discretion: The Court observed that the state had not exercised the necessary restraint and had instead turned highways into "liquor-friendly corridors." It stated: > "Such an indiscriminate invocation of municipal classifications amounts to making a mockery of the discretion cautiously conferred by the Hon’ble Apex Court."

Primacy of Right to Life Over Revenue: The bench unequivocally rejected the state's revenue-based justification, emphasizing that constitutional objectives must prevail over fiscal interests. > "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."

The Court also noted that with the rapid expansion of urban limits, a mechanical reliance on such classifications would render the Supreme Court's protective mandate an "empty formality."

The Final Verdict and Directions

Finding the state's actions untenable, the High Court decided to "restore and enforce, in full rigor" the original safety parameters laid down in the K. Balu judgment. The Court issued the following clear and uncompromising directions:

1. Immediate Removal/Relocation: All liquor shops situated within the restricted 500-meter zone from a National or State Highway must be removed or relocated.
   
   
2. No Exceptions: This directive applies universally, "irrespective of whether they fall under municipal areas, local self-governing bodies or statutory development authorities."
   
   
3. Two-Month Deadline: The state has two months to shift the 1102 identified shops to locations beyond the 500-meter limit.
   
   
4. Ban on Advertisements: The state must ensure no hoardings, signages, or advertisements for liquor are visible from the highways.
   
   
5. Compliance Report: The Excise Commissioner is required to file a detailed compliance affidavit before the next hearing on January 26, 2025.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder to the executive to uphold judicial mandates in their true spirit, particularly when the fundamental right to life is at stake.