Supreme Court stays order for removal of liquor shops on highways across Rajasthan

The Supreme Court has stayed the Rajasthan High Court's order directing the removal or relocation of all liquor shops situated within 500 metres of National and State Highways, including 1102 shops, irrespective of municipal or local body location. 

High Court in November 2025 had further directed the State Government to ensure that no hoardings, signages or advertisements relating to the availability of liquor/liquor shops are visible from the National or State Highways, even while relocating the shops beyond the mandatory distance of 500 metres, in strict and uncompromising adherence to the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The high court had noted with profound concern that the State of Rajasthan continued to witness an alarming rise in fatal road accidents, leading to the tragic and avoidable loss of valuable human lives. 

A bench Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has issued notice on a SLP moved by one Ram Swarup who has been operating a liquor shop for about two years.

"The present location was also earmarked by the State, and it is not on the volition of the Petitioner. That since substantial consideration has paid to the State Government and investment also made for operation of-the present liquor shop, the license can continue till 31st of March, 2026. The renewal rights of course would be subject to the decision taken by the State Government with regard to the vacation of the liquor shop, after taking into account even the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the impugned order," the SLP states.

Supreme Court has been told that sudden closure of the shop within the stipulated license period would lead to adverse impact on the petitioner who will have to prematurely close the shop without any explicit fault on his part.

Notably, Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu & Ors. had issued landmark directions prohibiting the grant of licences for the sale of liquor along National and State Highways within a distance of 500 metres, primarily to safeguard public life and ensure road safety under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By way of clarification the Supreme Court had also relaxed the distance restriction to 220 metres in cases of local bodies having a population of 20,000 or less, thereby recognising demographic and developmental distinctions.

The SLP petitioner has also relied on the decision in Arrive Safe Society of Chandigarh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ann, the Supreme Court has further clarified that its directions were not intended to prohibit licensed liquor establishments situated within municipal areas, the object being regulation of liquor access along highways as transport corridors.

It has been stated that the High Court has failed to take into consideration the relevant facts:

a) That the liquor vends like the petitioners to be shut down, and no opportunity of hearing was accorded to them;
b) That on part of the liquor vends there were no express breach of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India;
c) Failure to fix the norms for the municipal areas is failure on behalf of State Government for which the present liquor vends should not be held responsible.

"High Court has failed to consider that there is no direct evidence to indicate that accidents have happened due to the consumption of liquor on the National Highway alone. There are several contributing factors for hike in accident", the SLP adds.

Case Title: RAM SWAROOP YADAV vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Bench: Justices Nath and Mehta

Hearing Date: January 19, 2026