Supreme Court Stays Rajasthan HC Order on Removal of Liquor Shops Near Highways
Apex court says road safety concerns are genuine, but directions need careful review
Rajasthan govt and shop owners get interim relief as case awaits final hearing
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: January 21, 2026:
In a significant ruling balancing road safety with administrative practicality, the Supreme Court of India has stayed a Rajasthan High Court order that directed the removal or relocation of 1,102 liquor shops situated within 500 metres of national and state highways across the state.
Also Read: Orissa High Court Quashes Policy Denying NOC to In-Service Doctors for Sponsored DNB Admissions
The High Court’s order, delivered in November 2025, had instructed the state government to act within two months, citing the rising toll of road accidents linked to drunken driving. However, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that while the concerns were “absolutely genuine,” the sweeping directions required closer judicial scrutiny, especially considering earlier apex court rulings that exempted liquor shops located within municipal limits from such restrictions.
Background of the Case
- The Rajasthan High Court order arose from a 2023 petition filed by residents of Sujangarh in Churu district, who argued that liquor shops near highways encouraged drunken driving and road accidents.
- The High Court directed the state government to identify and remove all liquor shops within 500 metres of highways, regardless of whether they were inside municipal limits.
- The Rajasthan government and liquor licence holders challenged the order in the Supreme Court, arguing that it ignored earlier apex court rulings and posed practical difficulties in urban areas where highways pass through towns and cities.
- On January 19, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, granting interim relief to the state and shop owners.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court made several key points:
Also Read: MP High Court Rules: No Rural Posting Bond for In-Service Doctors After PG
- Road safety concerns valid: The Court acknowledged the seriousness of drunken driving and its contribution to road fatalities.
- Sweeping directions problematic: It noted that the High Court’s blanket order ignored earlier Supreme Court rulings that exempted liquor shops within municipal limits.
- Need for policy review: The Court said the issue requires a balanced policy decision rather than judicial overreach.
- Interim relief granted: The stay ensures that liquor shops will not be removed immediately, pending further hearings.
Justice Vikram Nath remarked: “The concern shown here is absolutely genuine… the fact is that many deaths have indeed taken place. Some decision or policy will have to be put in place to save lives.”
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling has wide implications for governance, business, and public safety:
- For road safety: It highlights the urgent need to address drunken driving while ensuring practical enforcement.
- For liquor businesses: Provides relief to shop owners who faced sudden closure or relocation.
- For state governments: Reinforces the need to balance judicial directions with administrative feasibility.
- For legal precedent: Clarifies that municipal exemptions recognized by the Supreme Court remain valid.
Likely Impact on Stakeholders
- Liquor shop owners: Gain temporary relief from closure orders, protecting livelihoods.
- State government: Gets time to review policies and align them with Supreme Court rulings.
- Citizens: Road safety concerns remain pressing, but enforcement will require nuanced solutions.
- Judiciary: The case underscores the importance of judicial restraint in policy-heavy matters.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: Husband’s Failure to File Income Affidavit Can Lead to Adverse Inference
Reactions to the Judgment
- Legal experts: Welcomed the Supreme Court’s balanced approach, noting that road safety must be addressed through policy, not blanket judicial orders.
- Business community: Expressed relief that livelihoods were protected, especially in urban areas where relocation is impractical.
- Public opinion: Mixed, with some supporting strict removal to curb drunken driving, while others stressed the need for realistic enforcement.
Broader Context
The issue of liquor shops near highways has been contentious since the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling, which banned liquor sales within 500 metres of national and state highways to curb drunken driving. However, the Court later clarified that shops within municipal limits were exempt, recognizing the practical difficulties in urban areas.
The Rajasthan High Court’s order sought to override this exemption, leading to conflict with established precedent. The Supreme Court’s stay restores clarity while leaving room for policy reforms.
Conclusion
Also Read: Supreme Court Empowers State Agencies to Probe Corruption Cases Against Central Officers
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Rajasthan High Court’s order on liquor shops near highways is a landmark intervention balancing road safety with administrative practicality. While acknowledging the genuine concerns about drunken driving, the apex court emphasized that sweeping directions cannot ignore established precedent or practical realities.
As the case proceeds, the ruling underscores the need for a comprehensive national policy on liquor sales near highways, ensuring both public safety and fairness to businesses.
GEO Keywords (for faster searches on Google + ChatGPT)
- Supreme Court stays Rajasthan HC liquor shops order
- Liquor shops near highways Rajasthan case
- Road safety drunken driving Supreme Court ruling
- Rajasthan High Court liquor shop removal order
- Apex court Vikram Nath Sandeep Mehta liquor case
- Municipal limits exemption liquor shops Supreme Court
- 500 metres liquor shop ban highways India
- Rajasthan govt liquor licence holders Supreme Court relief
- Road fatalities drunken driving liquor shop case India
- Supreme Court highway liquor shops ruling 2026