Highway liquor sale restrictions upheld, with limited relaxations for small local bodies, existing licences, and hilly terrain.

The Supreme Court upheld the prohibition on liquor vends along national and state highways and the 500 metre buffer zone, treating the measure as a valid road-safety safeguard linked to preventing drunken driving and protecting life, health and public safety. It rejected the contention that the directions were beyond constitutional power or amounted to policy-making, noting that liquor trade carries no vested entitlement to a licence. The Court allowed limited relaxation for small local bodies, certain existing licences, and the special terrain of Meghalaya and Sikkim, but declined further dilution or reading down of the directions to apply only to shops selling liquor.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier directions prohibiting liquor vends on national and state highways and fixing a 500 metre buffer zone required modification in exercise of the Court's constitutional power. (ii) Whether limited relaxation was warranted for local bodies with smaller populations, for licences in States with different excise years, and for the States with hilly terrain. (iii) Whether the directions could be read down so as to apply only to shops involving sale of liquor.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier directions prohibiting liquor vends on national and state highways and fixing a 500 metre buffer zone required modification in exercise of the Court's constitutional power.

Analysis: The directions were founded on the Union's road-safety policy, expert recommendations, long-standing advisories, and the statutory mandate against drunken driving. The trade in liquor is not protected as of right and carries no vested entitlement to a licence. The 500 metre buffer was treated as a necessary measure to prevent ready access to liquor by highway users and to protect life, health, and public safety. The Court therefore rejected the challenge that the earlier judgment was a legislative or policy-making exercise beyond constitutional power.

Conclusion: The core prohibition on liquor vends along highways and within the prescribed buffer was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether limited relaxation was warranted for local bodies with smaller populations, for licences in States with different excise years, and for the States with hilly terrain.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the blanket 500 metre rule could be moderated in specific situations without defeating the underlying objective. For local bodies with a population of 20,000 or less, the prohibited distance was reduced to 220 metres. Existing licences renewed before 15 December 2016 were permitted to continue until the end of the relevant excise year, but not beyond 30 September 2017. Meghalaya and Sikkim were exempted from the 500 metre distance requirement because of their special terrain. No further relaxation was granted to Himachal Pradesh beyond the smaller-population exception.

Conclusion: Limited modifications were granted in specified categories, while the main policy remained intact.

Issue (iii): Whether the directions could be read down so as to apply only to shops involving sale of liquor.

Analysis: The Court declined to dilute the directions in that manner, because the object was to prevent drunken driving and the availability of liquor near highways would undermine that object. The directions were required to operate as originally framed, save for the limited modifications expressly granted.

Conclusion: The request to read down the directions was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The batch of applications was disposed of with limited relaxations in specified situations, while the principal directions against liquor vends on highways were maintained and the connected appeal stood disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment and the present order.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may issue and, where justice so requires, suitably modulate highway-safety directions under Article 142 to protect public health and public safety, but such relaxation cannot defeat the core objective of preventing drunken driving.

---