The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order that had directed the State to remove or relocate all liquor shops situated within 500 metres of National and State Highways across Rajasthan [Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan].
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that while the High Court's concern was genuine, it could not ignore the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling exempting liquor shops inside municipal limits from being hit by the highway ban.
The High Court order under challenge arose from a petition filed in 2023 by two residents of Sujangarh in Churu district. They had complained about liquor shops being located close to highways. They claimed that this encouraged drunk driving and led to fatal accidents.
While hearing that petition, the Rajasthan High Court began examining road safety issues in depth. It referred to data showing a rise in drunk driving cases in Rajasthan in 2025 and recent accidents in which dozens of people had died within days.
It also relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, which banned liquor vends along highways.
The State filed affidavits saying it was following Supreme Court directions and that about 1,102 out of 7,665 liquor shops in Rajasthan were located on highways only because those stretches fell within municipal or local body limits. It also said these shops generated over ₹2,200 crore in revenue and were exempt from the 2016 ban.
The High Court rejected the State’s stand. It held that the discretion given by the Supreme Court had been misused and that treating highways as “municipal areas” defeated the very purpose of road safety.
It directed that all liquor shops within 500 metres of National and State Highways be removed or relocated within two months, regardless of whether they fell in municipal or local body areas.
This sweeping order led to multiple petitions being filed before the Supreme Court, including by private parties and the State itself.
When the matter came up today, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, said he had not even been heard by the High Court before such a drastic State-wide order was passed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, said that the original case concerned only seven liquor shops in Sujangarh village, but the High Court extended it to the entire State.
Rohatgi argued that despite the Supreme Court's earlier clarification exempting liquor shops within municipal boundaries from the highway ban, the High Court had proceeded to order a blanket removal of all shops within 500 metres irrespective of whether they came under municipal boundaries or not.
"A judge (of the High Court) cannot do that," Rohatgi said.
"A judge can do everything," Justice Nath replied in jest.
"He’s the senior most judge in Jodhpur that’s why he must be thinking he can do anything," Rohatgi quipped.
At this point, Justice Mehta intervened.
"The concern shown by the High Court is absolutely genuine. The deaths etc were a matter of concern. That’s why we are saying in future something should be done to address this issue. The State can record that in future you will take care of the issue of liquor vends not being there on the highway," he remarked.
Meanwhile, SG Mehta pointed out how indirect advertisements on highways still point people to liquor shops.
"Indian ingenuity no one has seen. There is a rule in some states that says one will not advertise with hoardings on highways that there is a liquor vend nearby. Now the only hoarding is an arrow. Those who know, know what the arrow is for," he said.
He then used a light-hearted anecdote to elicit a chuckle from the Court.
"There was one beggar. Mandir ke samne baitha koi 10 Paisa daalta, koi 25 paisa daalta, 10-15 rupay ki income hoti thi. Masjid ke saamne gaya same. Church ke saamne gaya same. Ultimately kisine kaha theke ke saamne jaa ke baith. Wahan jaa ke baitha, jo bhi theke se nikla 100 rupay diya. Usne kaha khuda tu rehta kaha hai aur pata kahan ka deta hai!" Mehta said.
(There was once a beggar. He sat near a temple, people gave him 10 paise, 25 paise, he earned 10 - 15 rupees. He went near a mosque, same. Near a church, same. Then someone told him, go and sit near a liquor shop. He sat there, whoever came out gave him ₹100. He quipped, 'God, what is your actual abode')
As laughter filled the courtroom, Rohatgi added that indirect “shadow advertisements” like soda or water signs were also used to point to liquor shops.
The Court ultimately issued notice and stayed the operation of the High Court's order.
[Read Live Coverage]