New Delhi, January 19, 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Monday stayed the operation of a Rajasthan High Court directive that had ordered the removal or relocation of all liquor outlets situated within 500 metres of national and state highways across the state. While the top court acknowledged the serious public safety concerns arising from alcohol-related road accidents, it said the High Court’s sweeping directions required closer scrutiny before implementation.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the matter and ordered that the effect of the Rajasthan High Court’s order shall remain stayed until further directions. The bench observed that while the High Court’s concerns were valid, the blanket approach mandated by the order could have wide-ranging consequences, particularly in urban areas where highways pass through municipal limits.

Background of the Case

The Rajasthan High Court had passed the order on November 24, 2025, in response to what it described as an “alarming rise in fatal road accidents” and the perception that highways had effectively become “liquor-friendly corridors.”

• The High Court directed the removal or relocation of 1,102 liquor outlets situated within 500 metres of highways, regardless of whether they fell under municipal limits, local self-governing bodies, or development authorities.
• It also prohibited advertisements, signboards, and hoardings promoting liquor that were visible to highway users.
• The court cited accident data and fatal crashes, including incidents in Jaipur’s Harmada area and Phalodi, which together claimed at least 28 lives, and emphasized that the easy accessibility of alcohol posed a direct threat to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The order highlighted that revenue considerations, including the state’s liquor revenue of over ₹2,200 crore, were being prioritized over public safety.

Supreme Court Intervention

The Supreme Court’s stay was prompted by a petition filed by Ram Swaroop Yadav, who challenged the High Court order on the grounds that it was passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) without hearing affected parties and did not adequately consider earlier Supreme Court precedents that allowed liquor vends in municipal areas and local bodies.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, argued that the order could have drastic consequences for liquor vendors and local economies if implemented. He noted that the High Court had issued the directions without providing any opportunity to affected parties to present their case.

The Rajasthan government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, supported the petition for suspension of the High Court order, citing practical difficulties in enforcement. Mehta explained that several towns and cities in Rajasthan are located directly on national or state highways, making compliance with the 500-metre rule nearly impossible in urban areas. He cited similar challenges faced by other states and union territories, such as Chandigarh, where municipal areas overlap with highway stretches.

Balancing Public Safety and Practicality

While staying the High Court order, the Supreme Court emphasized that it was not discounting the seriousness of the issue. The bench recognized the rising number of highway accidents and fatalities linked to alcohol consumption and noted the urgent need for a balanced policy response.

The Supreme Court referred to its own jurisprudence on liquor vends along highways, beginning with the 2016 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Balu, which initially imposed a blanket 500-metre prohibition. Subsequent clarifications allowed states to permit licensed establishments within municipal areas and other local bodies, leaving the decision to state governments to account for local conditions and developmental requirements.

The bench observed that the High Court’s order, if implemented without consideration of ground realities and state autonomy, could conflict with these earlier rulings. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for contextual decision-making that ensures road safety while respecting federal principles and practical feasibility.

Next Steps

With the stay in place, the Rajasthan High Court order will not take effect until the Supreme Court delivers a final ruling on the matter. The petition will be heard at a later date, during which both the petitioner and the state government will have the opportunity to present arguments regarding the implementation, safety concerns, and economic impact of relocating liquor outlets.

In the meantime, liquor shops located within 500 metres of highways in Rajasthan will continue to operate as before, though authorities and the public remain aware of the underlying safety concerns highlighted by the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court’s stay reflects a careful approach that balances public safety and practical governance.
• It underscores the need for nuanced policies that do not blindly apply blanket rules, particularly in urban areas where highways intersect towns and cities.
• The matter highlights the ongoing challenge of reducing alcohol-related road accidents while respecting constitutional and economic considerations.
• States are encouraged to formulate targeted policies, such as licensing regulations, restricted sales hours, safety signage, and awareness campaigns, rather than sweeping closures.

The case continues to be closely monitored, as it has significant implications for road safety measures, liquor regulation, and the interaction between judicial directives and administrative feasibility across India.