The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a Rajasthan High Court order that had directed the removal or relocation of all liquor shops situated within 500 metres of national and state highways across the state, including those within municipal limits. The High Court’s directive had come in response to concerns over the rise in fatal road accidents due to alcohol consumption.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice on petitions filed by liquor vendors and the Rajasthan government challenging the November 2025 order of the Jodhpur bench. “Issue notice. The effect and operation of the impugned order is stayed,” the bench said. However, the court also noted, “The concern of the High Court was genuine,” and asked the state to consider it while framing future liquor policies.
The Rajasthan High Court, acting on a PIL filed in 2023, had directed that all liquor shops within a 500-metre radius of national and state highways be removed within two months, regardless of whether they were located in municipal areas, local bodies, or under development authorities. It cited the 2016 Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, which banned liquor vends within 500 metres of highways to curb drunk driving and related accidents.
Although the apex court had clarified in 2017 that the ban would not apply within municipal limits, the High Court held that this relaxation had been misused and had undermined road safety objectives. The court had observed that Rajasthan had 1,102 such liquor shops generating over ₹2,221 crore in revenue but compromising public safety. “The admitted operation of 1102 liquor shops on national and state highways effectively nullifies the safety objective underlying the apex court’s orders,” the HC had stated.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Rajasthan government, argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the apex court’s relaxation regarding municipal areas. “The order was later clarified that within municipal limits, there would not be any such ban on liquor shops,” he submitted.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for liquor vendors, called the High Court’s order erroneous and arbitrary. He argued that the court passed sweeping directions for the entire state while the PIL related to just one village — Sujangarh — and did so without hearing all stakeholders. “The judge still says there will be a ban, irrespective of the apex court’s direction,” Rohatgi told the bench.
In response, Justice Mehta noted that the High Court has jurisdiction across the state. But the bench ultimately stayed the implementation of the order and issued notices to the respondents.
In its sharply worded order, the Rajasthan High Court had accused the state of misusing the Supreme Court’s discretionary leeway. It warned that the constitutional duty to protect life and ensure road safety could not be compromised for revenue collection. “This court expresses extreme concern regarding the manner in which the directions of the apex court have been diluted… such deviation cannot be countenanced,” the High Court said.
The matter will now be further examined by the Supreme Court, which has stayed the Rajasthan HC’s directions until further orders. The state’s liquor policy, particularly its implementation in areas near highways, is now likely to face closer scrutiny.
