Page 1

REPORTABLE

     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos .12164-12166   OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14911-14913 of 2013]

THE STATE OF TAMILNADU  .....APPELLANTS REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME,  PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPT & ORS                             

Versus  

K BALU & ANR .....RESPONDENTS                            

WITH CIVIL APPEAL No. 12167   OF 2016

[Arising out of SLP (C)No.8267 OF 2014]

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 12168   OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.8971 OF 2014]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 12169   OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.35454 OF 2014]  

CIVIL APPEAL No.12170   OF 2016 [S.L.P.(C) No.36787 of 2016 @ of CC No.231 OF 2015]

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 12171-12172  OF 2016 [S.L.P.(C) Nos.36788-36789  of 2016 @ of CC Nos.18587-18588 OF 2015]  

CIVIL APPEAL No.12173   OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.34525 OF 2015]

AND

T.P.(C) No.739-741OF 2016

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The issue which we address in this case is about the presence of liquor

vends on national and state highways across the country. The backdrop to the

case is provided by alarming statistics on the occurrence of road accidents.

They have claimed human lives and caused debility  and injury. Both on a

personal scale (in terms of the injuries and loss of life) as well as in a social

context,  restitution  in  the  form of  mandatory  awards  of  compensation  can

never undo the trauma of loss and the pain of suffering. The law can only

imperfectly  alleviate  the  consequences  of  road  accidents.   In  terms  of

personal suffering caused to individuals and families as well as in terms of

deprivation caused to society of its productive social capital, road accidents

impose  unacceptable  costs.  We will  analyse  the  issues  which  have  been

raised in this case on the basis of facts which are not in dispute and on the

foundation of  policy statements of the Union government which have been

formulated after careful consideration. In doing that,  the court  must ensure

that  the  parameters  for  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  are  confined  to  the

familiar terrain of enforcing the constitutional right to lead a life of dignity and

self-worth.

Page 3

3

2 The  Union  and  the  State  Lists  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the

Constitution distribute  (in  conjunction with  Articles  245 and 246)  legislative

jurisdiction over the highways which traverse the length and breadth of India,

between Parliament and the State Legislatures. The constitutional pattern in

relation to the distribution of legislative heads is replicated in this area : what is

national  is  reserved  to  Parliament  while  that  which  has  a  state-centric

orientation is reserved to the state legislatures. Entry 23 of the Union List is

thus :  

“23. Highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be national highways”.

Entry 13 of the State List is thus :  

“13.  Communications,  that  is  to  say,  roads, bridges,  ferries,  and  other  means  of communication  not  specified  in  List  I;  municipal tramways; ropeways; inland waterways and traffic thereon subject to the provisions of List I and List III  with regard to such waterways; vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles.”

3 The Union Ministry of  Road Transport  and Highways in its Transport

Research Wing has brought out a publication titled “Road Accidents in India -

2015”.  The  cover  depicts  in  rather  graphic  terms  vehicles  involved  in  car

crashes. There is a large group of persons assembled in the foreground, an

ambulance bearing the ‘108’ logo and a police car. Familiar sights on Indian

roads. The publication tells us that :

Page 4

4

“11.1 During 2015, within the category of drivers’ fault, accidents caused and  persons killed due to ‘Exceeding  lawful  speed’,  accounted  for  a  high share of 62.2 per cent (2,40,463 out of 3,86,481 accidents)  and  61.0  per  cent  (64,633  out  of 1,06,021 deaths), respectively.  

However  taking  into  account  the  total  road accidents and total road accident killings, the share of over speeding comes to 47.9 per cent (2,40,463 out  of  5,01,423  accidents)  and  44.2  per  cent (64,633 out of 1,46,133 deaths) respectively.

11.2 Intake of alcohol/drugs by drivers resulted in 16,298 road accidents and 6,755 fatalities in 2015 within  the  category  of  drivers’  fault,  intake  of alcohol/drugs accounted for 4.2 per cent and 6.4 per cent respectively.  

However  taking  into  account  the  total  road accidents and total road accident killing, the share of  intake of alcohol/drugs comes to 3.3 per cent (16,298  out  of  5,01,423  accidents)  and  4.6  per cent (6,755 out of 1,46,133 deaths) respectively.”  

4 The  total  number  of  persons  killed  in  road  accidents  on  national

highways was 48,768 in 2012 and 51,204 in 2015. In 2014, on the national

highways there were 1.24 lakh accident cases resulting in 1.35 lakh persons

injured and 46,110 deaths. During the same year, on state highways, there

were  1.13  lakh  accident  cases  resulting  in  1.24  lakh  injured  and  39,352

deaths. The expressways witnessed 4,208 accident cases, 4,229 injured and

1,802 deaths.1. Figures are also available of the distribution of road accidents

by  causes  during  2014.  1.38  lakh  persons  were  injured  in  road accidents

involving dangerous or careless driving and 42,127 deaths occurred. Injuries

caused in accidents due to over-speeding stood at 1.81 lakh while there were

1

See death A.7 page 160

Page 5

5

48,654 deaths. 7,307 accident cases involving driving under the influence of

drugs/alcohol were registered resulting in 7,398 injuries and 2,591 deaths. In

regard  to  the  figures  of  death  or  injury  due  to  drunken driving  there  is  a

tendency to under estimate or under—report in order not to impede the right of

victims and/ or their legal heirs to receive compensation.  

5 Now in this background, it would be necessary to elucidate the policy

adopted by the Union government. The National Road Safety Council (NRSC)

is an apex body for road safety established under Section 215 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. NRSC unanimously agreed in a meeting which was held

nearly thirteen years ago on 15 January 2004 that licences for liquor shops

should not  to be given along the national  highways.  The Ministry  of  Road

Transport  and  Highways  (MoRTH)  issued  a  circular  to  all  the  state

governments advising them to remove liquor shops situated along national

highways and not to issue fresh licenses. Since 26 October 2007, when an

advisory  was  issued,  MoRTH  has  consistently  advised  all  the  state

governments to remove liquor shops and not to issue fresh licences to liquor

vends along national highways.  

6 On 1 December 2011, MoRTH in an advisory to the Chief Secretaries of

all the States and Union Territories noted that India had reported the highest

number of road accident fatalities in the world and data of 2009 indicated that

a road accident occurred every four minutes. Drunken driving, it was stated,

was a leading cause of road accidents with as many as 27,152 road accidents

being caused under the influence of alcohol in that year. The advisory drew

Page 6

6

attention to the provisions of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

solicited the following enforcement action :

“(i) Strict enforcement of section 185 of MV Act 1988 preferably pursuing cases in various courts for award of penalty of imprisonment followed by adequate publicity  which will  together  act  as  a deterrent for drunken driving.

(ii) Removal  of  Liquor  shops  along  National highways.

(iii)  No fresh license may be issued to Liquor vendors to open shops along National highways.

(iv)  Wherever  licenses have been given in the past  to  open  liquor  shops  along  National highways,  such  cases  may  be  reviewed  and corrective  action  taken under  intimation  to  this Ministry.”  

Section  185  to  which  a  reference  has  been  made  in  the  above  circular

provides as follows :  

“185.  Driving  by  a  drunken  person  or  by  a  person  under  the influence of  drugs. Whoever, while  driving,  or  attempting to  drive,  a motor vehicle,--

a. has,  in his  blood, alcohol  in any quantity, howsoever small the quantity may be, or

b. is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may  extend to  six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if  committed  within three  years of  the commission  of the  previous similar offence, with  imprisonment  for  a  term  which  may  extend  to  two years,  or  with  fine  which  may extend  to  three thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government

Page 7

7

in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle.”

.

Section 185 is indicative of a Parliamentary intent to follow a zero-tolerance

policy towards driving under the influence of alcohol.  

The  position  was  illustrated  in  another  advisory  dated  18  March  2013  of

MoRTH to the Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories where it was

stated that in 2011, 1.42 lakh people were killed in 4.9 lakhs road accidents.

24,655 road accidents were caused due to drunken driving resulting in 10,553

deaths and injuries to 21,148 persons. The advisory requested the removal of

all  liquor  vends on national  highways and a ban on the issuance of  fresh

licences on the ground that “prevention is better than cure”.  

7 In an advisory dated 21 May 2014, MoRTH stated that in 2012, 1.38

lakh people were killed in 4.9 lakh road accidents. 23,979 road accidents were

caused due to drunken driving resulting in 7835 deaths and injuries to 23,403

persons.  

8 The Union government has constantly issued advisories setting out, as

a matter of policy, its position.  

9 The material which has been placed on record indicates that :  

(i) India has a high rate of road accidents and fatal road accidents – one of the

advisories states that it is the highest in the world with an accident occurring

every four minutes;

Page 8

8

(ii)   There is  a  high  incidence of  road accidents  due to  driving  under  the

influence of alcohol;

(iii)  The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the considered

view of the National Road Safety Council and MoRTH – expert authorities with

domain knowledge – a cause for road accidents on national highways;

(iv)  Advisories  have  been  issued  to  the  State  Governments  and  Union

Territories to close down liquor vends on national highways and to ensure that

no fresh licences are issued in the future. The reason why these advisories

are  confined  to  the  national  highways  is  because  of  the  distribution  of

legislative competence between the Union and the States under the Seventh

Schedule to  the Constitution.  State  highways fall  under  the domain of  the

states.  

10 The  figures  which  are  available  on  the  record  indicate  that  the

occurrence of a large number of road accidents is not a phenomenon confined

to  national  highways  nor  is  the  prevalence  of  road  accidents,  including

fatalities, confined only to the national highways. Both the national highways

and state  highways  share  a  common experience of  an  unacceptably  high

number  of  road  accidents,  the  prevalence  injuries  and  fatalities;  drunken

driving being one of the major causes. Hence, the content of the advisories

which  have been issued by  the  Union government  as  well  as  their  basis,

rationale and foundation would equally apply to state highways. Human life is

precious. As the road network expands in India, road infrastructure being an

Page 9

9

integral part of economic development, accidents profoundly impact on the life

of the common citizen.  For a nation on the cusp of economic development,

India can well avoid the tag of being the accident capital of the world. Our

highways are expanding,  as are the expressways.  They provide seamless

connectivity and unheralded opportunities for the growth of trade and industry

and for the movement of goods, persons and capital. They are the backbone

of  the  freedom of  trade  and  commerce  guaranteed  by  Article  301  of  the

Constitution. Our highways are dotted with sign boards warning of the dangers

of combining speed and alcohol. Together, they constitute a heady cocktail.

The availability of liquor along the highways is an opportunity to consume.

Easy access to  liquor  shops allows for  drivers  of  vehicles    to  partake in

alcohol, in callous disregard to their own safety and the safety of others. The

advisories of the Union government to the states are founded on a logical and

sound rationale.  

11 We are conscious of the fact that the policy of the Union government to

discontinue  liquor  vends  on  national  highways  may  not  eliminate  drunken

driving completely. A driver of a motor vehicle can acquire liquor even before

the commencement of a journey or, during a journey at a place other than a

national or state highway. The law on preventing drunken driving also requires

proper enforcement. Having said this, the court must accept the policy of the

Union government for more than one reason. First and foremost, it is trite law

that in matters of policy, in this case a policy on safety, the court will defer to

and accept a considered view formed by an expert body. Second as we have

Page 10

10

seen, this view of the Union government is based on statistics and data which

make out a consistent pattern year after year. Third the existence of liquor

vends on highways presents a potent source for easy availability of alcohol.

The  existence  of  liquor  vends;  advertisements  and  sign  boards  drawing

attention  to  the  availability  of  liquor  coupled  with  the  arduous  drives

particularly in heavy vehicles makes it abundantly necessary to enforce the

policy of the Union government to safeguard human life. In doing so, the court

does not fashion its own policy but enforces the right to life under Article 21 of

the Constitution based on the considered view of expert bodies.  

12 There is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to trade in liquor.

Liquor has been regarded as res extra commercium : State of Bihar v. Nirmal

Kumar Gupta, (2013) 2 SCC 565; Amar Chandra Chakraborty, Appellant v.

Collector of Excise, Govt of Tripura, Agartala, (1972) 2 SCC 442; Nashirwar v.

State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 1 SCC 29; Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise

and Taxation Commissioner, (1975) 1 SCC 737;  Secretary to Government,

Tamil  Nadu v. K.  Vinayagamurthy, (2002) 7  SCC 104;  State of   Punjab v.

Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26. State of Kerala v. Kandath

Distilleries, (2013) 6 SCC 573.

13 Liquor licences in respect of potable alcoholic liquor are granted by the

state governments. Entry 51 of the state list provides for duties of excise on

alcoholic  liquors for  home consumption manufactured and produced in the

state and countervailing duties at the same or lower rates on similar goods

manufactured or produced elsewhere in India. The power of  the states to

Page 11

11

grant liquor licences is undoubted. The issue is whether such liquor licences

should be granted on national and state highways at the cost of endangering

human  lives  and  safety.  In  our  view,  which  is  based  on  the  expert

determination of the Union government, we hold that the answer should be in

the negative. Though, excise duty is an important source of revenue to the

states,  a prohibition on the grant  of  liquor licences to  liquor shops on the

national and state highways would only regulate the grant of such licences in

a manner that would ensure that the consumption of alcoholic liquor does not

pose  dangers  to  the  lives  and  safety  of  the  users  of  national  and  state

highways. May we also remind ourselves that among the Directive Principles

contained in the Constitution is that in Article 47 :

“47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of  living and to improve public health:  The State shall  regard the raising of  the level  of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the  improvement  of  public  health  as  among  its primary  duties  and,  in  particular,  the  State  shall endeavour  to  bring  about  prohibition  of  the consumption  except  for  medicinal  purposes  of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.”

14 Well  over  a  decade  ago,  the  Union  government  had  formulated  for

consideration  and  adoption  by  the  states  a  document  titled  “Model

Policy/taxation/act/rules  for  alcoholic  beverages  and  alcohol”.  The  Model

Policy inter alia made general provisions relating to liquor vends. Para 92(2) of

the Model Policy inter alia provides as follows :

Page 12

12

“(2) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a  retail  vend  selected  within  a  distance  of  100 metres from any religious or educational institution or hospital or outside the inhabited site of village /town/city  or  any  Office  of  the  State/Central Government  or  Local  Authorities  or  within  a distance  of  220  metres  from  the  middle  of  the State/National Highways.

Explanation – For the purpose of this rule :

(a) “National Highway” or “State Highway” shall not include such parts of the National Highway or State Highway as are situated within the limits  of  Municipal  Corporation, City or Town Municipal Council or such other authority having a population of twenty thousand or more.”   

This Model Policy provided for a minimum distance from the state/national

highways for locating liquor shops. However, an exception was carved out to

the effect that the national or state highways would not include such parts of

them as are situated within the limits of the local authorities with a population

of 20,000 or more. By an order of this Court dated 8 September 2015, the

attention of the authorities was drawn to the fact that the model policy had

been  prepared nearly  a  decade  earlier  and  several  decisions  of  the  High

Courts  have  been  delivered  since.  Hence,  the  court  opined  that  it  was

necessary that the policy is revisited by the states and union territories and by

the Union government together in regard to the sale of liquor and alcoholic

beverages in the proximity of national and state highways. MoRTH however

has informed the court on affidavit that a model policy on alcoholic beverages

and alcohol  does not fall  within its purview, and hence it  may not  be in a

position to review the model policy. MoRTH while stating this has emphasised

its considered view and position based on the statistics of road accidents that

Page 13

13

liquor  shops  should  not  be  situated  along  national  highways.  We see  no

rational basis to exclude stretches of national highways and state highways

which fall within the limits of a municipal or local authority (with a population

exceeding a stipulated figure)  from the ambit  of  the suggested prohibition.

Where a national or state highway passes through a city, town or through the

area of jurisdiction of a local authority, it would completely deny sense and

logic to allow the sale of liquor along that stretch of the highway. Such an

exclusion would defeat the policy since the presence of liquor shops along

such stretches of a national or state highway would allow drivers to replenish

their stock of alcohol, resulting in a situation which the policy seeks to avoid in

the first  place.  Once it  is  an accepted position that  the presence of  liquor

vends along the highways poses a grave danger to road safety an exception

cannot be carved out to permit the sale of liquor along a stretch of the highway

which passes through the limits  of  a city, town or  local  authority. Such an

exception would be wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14.  

15 During the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State of Punjab stated before the court that based on the model policy

the  Punjab  Excise  (Amendment)  Act,  2016  was  brought  into  force  on  28

March 2016. Section 26A of the Punjab Excise Act, 1941 provides as follows :

"26-A. (1) The location of the liquor vends shall be regulated  by  the  Government:  Provided  that  this section  shall  be  applicable  only  to  liquor  vends situated in areas adjoining the National Highways and  State  Highways  for  consumption,  off  the premises. (2) No licence for sale of liquor shall be granted to a liquor  vend situated within the road

Page 14

14

reservation  of  National  Highways  and  State Highways and beyond road reservation neither the liquor vends nor their entry points shall be visible or directly accessible from the National Highways and  State  Highways.  Explanation.–  (i)  “Visibility” means existence of any signboard, direction mark, display of  stock of liquor, display of  rates or any direct/indirect invitation to the commuter travelling on  such  Highway;  and  (ii)  “Directly  Accessible” means  such  liquor  vend  shall  not  be  directly approachable from the National Highway and State Highway.  (3)  The  restrictions  referred  to  in sub-section (2) shall not apply to the liquor vends situated in the areas adjoining to National Highway and State Highway, passing through the limits of Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council/ Municipal Committee/  Notified  Area  Committee/  Nagar Council/ Cantonment Board or any other Authority having a population of twenty thousand or more."

16 Explanation 3 by its operation merely confers an enabling power upon

the state government to grant liquor licences in the area as described therein.

We are of  the view that  the  exercise of  this  enabling power  by  the State

government must not obstruct or impede the overwhelming public interest in

ensuring that the sale of liquor along national or state highways should be

discontinued having regard to the danger to road safety.   

17 These proceedings have arisen under Article 136 of  the Constitution

from the judgments of the High Courts at Madras and Punjab and Haryana

respectively. The Madras High Court was seized with a public interest litigation

seeking the removal of retail outlets for liquor on national and state highways,

contrary to the advisory of the Union government dated 1 December 2011.

The High Court noted that in the state of Tamil Nadu liquor shops along the

Page 15

15

highways are being run by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Transport Corporation

(TASMAC). Before the High Court, the Managing Director of TASMAC stated

that :  

“It was also submitted that TASMAC Ltd has been taking  all  prudent  steps  to  remove  the  shops located  in  Highways  and  has  instructed  all  the Senior  Regional  Managers  to  refrain  from giving new  licenses  to  shops  that  are  proposed  to  be located on the Highways and also shift the existing shops  to  some other  place  without  violating  the Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and other relevant laws.”

The  affidavit  stated  that  nearly  504  shops  are  situated  along  national

highways and sometime would be required to relocate them. It was stated that

75  shops  have been shifted  and a new location for  335 shops  had been

identified.  Six  months’ time was sought  for  shifting the shops;  the affidavit

having being filed in March 2013. The High Court by a judgment and order of

its Division Bench dated 25 February 2013 granted time until 31 March 2013

for the relocation of existing liquor shops being run on national/state highways.

This order of the High Court has been questioned by the State of Tamil Nadu

and TASMAC.  

18 During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court by its order dated

7 May 2013 directed that liquor vends along national highways be removed by

14 August 2013. Notice was issued, confined to the closure of liquor vends

along state highways. An affidavit was filed before this Court on 22 August

2013 by the state government stating that 504 TASMAC retail  liquor shops

Page 16

16

along the national highways have been shifted. The additional affidavit filed by

the state on 29 April 2013 sets out the position in regard to state highways.   

The  total  length  of  state  highways  is  divided  into  five  regions  namely,

(i)  Chennai;  (ii)  Coimbatore  (iii)  Madurai;  (iv)  Salem;  and  (v)  Trichy  and

traverses 9520.4 kilometres. The total number of shops situated thereon is

stated to be 1731. 839 liquor shops out of them are situated in market areas

abutting the state highways in towns, municipalities and corporations while

892 are liquor shops in rural areas abutting the state highways. These figures

which  have  been  disclosed  by  the  state  government  indicate  the  serious

nature of  the problem. The proliferation of  liquor  shops on state highways

(1731 shops over 9520 kilometres) indicates the easy availability of liquor on

the state highways. Evidently within a distance of a few kilometres a liquor

shop is available to cater to the demand of the users of the highways. There

can be no valid distinction between a national  highway and state highway

insofar  as  the location of  liquor  shops abutting the highway is  concerned.

Accidents  take  place  both  on  national  and  state  highways  and  the  easy

availability of liquor possess a grave danger to the safety and lives of those

who use these highways.  

19 Insofar  as  the State  of  Punjab is  concerned,  the  petition for  special

leave has been filed by the state government against a judgment and order of

a Division Bench of the High Court dated 18 March 2014. Like the case before

the Madras High Court, the proceedings before the  Punjab and Haryana High

Court were instituted in public interest (in this case by the Arrive Safe Society

Page 17

17

of  Chandigarh)  seeking  directions  for  the  removal  of  liquor  vends  from

highways. The High Court directed the State of Haryana to ensure in its liquor

policy that no liquor vend shall be located along the national highways/state

highways  and  that  liquor  shops  are  not  accessible  or  visible  from  those

highways or from the service lanes running along such highways. The High

Court rejected the case of the state that the prohibition should be confined

only to the national highways. The High Court has, in our view, justifiably held

that  it  can hardly  be contended that  drunken driving is  not  permissible on

national  highways but  does no harm on state  highways.  In  relation to  the

States  of  Punjab  as  well  as  Haryana  the  High  Court  has  held  that  the

prohibition would apply to state and national highways.  

20 For the reasons that we have already indicted, we have come to the

conclusion that the views of the High Court of Madras and the High Court of

Punjab  and  Haryana  are  unexceptionable.  No  distinction  can  be  made

between national and state highways in regard to the location of liquor shops.

In regulating the use of national and state highways, the safety of the users of

the road is of paramount concern. It would defy common sense to prohibit

liquor shops along national highways while permitting them on state highways.

Drunken  driving  as  a  menace  and  as  a  cause  of  road  accidents  is  a

phenomenon  common  to  both  national  and  state  highways.  Nor,  is  it  a

plausible defence to urge that while it is impermissible to drink and drive on a

national highway, it is permissible to do so on a state highway.

Page 18

18

21 Moreover, we find merit in the restrictions suggested by the Punjab and

Haryana  High  Court  that  the  prohibition  should  extend  not  merely  to  the

national and state highways but must be so appropriately tailored so as to

ensure  that  the  policy  is  not  defeated  by  locating  liquor  shops  in  close

proximity of the highway. A restriction that the shop should not be accessible

or visible from the national or state highways or from a service lane along

such highways is  necessary to ensure that  the policy is not  surreptitiously

violated. Our attention has been drawn during the course of the hearing to a

report filed by the OSD Vigilance before the  High Court indicating that the

prohibition was sought to be defeated by setting up liquor vends which, though

not visible from the highway, were situated in close proximity with signboards

indicating their presence. The entry to the shop is camouflaged or placed at

the rear portion to evade the judicial  direction. A detailed survey has been

made by the OSD in which observations in regard to liquor shops located

along the highway have been recorded. We may also advert at this stage to a

letter  dated  4  August  2012  of  the  Project  Director  of  National  Highways

Authority of India (NHAI) to the Deputy Commissioners of various regions in

Punjab.  The  letter  highlights  that  on  a  stretch  of  291  kilometres  on  the

Panipat-Jalandhar section of NH-1, there are as many as 185 liquor shops

(though in  comparison the trauma centres  and hospitals  where  immediate

medical service can be provided to road accident victims is almost negligible).

Many of the liquor shops have encroached on national highway land. Though,

NHAI has sought the removal of these shops, “concrete action” is yet to be

Page 19

19

taken due to  the  lack  of  support  from various  quarters.  Liquor  shops,  the

Project Director notes, are owned by influential people making the removal of

unauthorised  encroachment  impossible  without  the  support  of  the  district

administration.   

22 For all these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that no licences

for liquor shops should be allowed both on the national and state highways.

Moreover, in order to ensure that this provision is not defeated by the adoption

of subterfuge, it would be necessary to direct that no exception can be carved

out for the grant of liquor licences in respect of those stretches of the national

or  state  highways  which  pass  through  the  limits  of  any  municipality

corporation,  city,  town  or  local  authority.  Necessary  safeguards  must  be

introduced to ensure that liquor vends are not visible or directly accessible

from the highway within a stipulated distance of 500 metres form the outer

edge of the highway, or from a service lane along the highway.

23 However, we have also duly borne in mind the practical difficulty which

has been expressed on behalf of the licence holders (including those in the

town of Mahe) and the states that there are licences which have been duly

renewed  and  whose  term  is  still  to  expire.  The  states  apprehend  that

premature termination may lead to claims for  refund of  licence fee for  the

unexpired term, with large financial implications. Hence we would direct that

current licences may continue for the existing term but not later than 1 April

2017.

Page 20

20

24 We accordingly hereby direct and order as follows :  

(i) All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from

granting  licences  for  the  sale  of  liquor  along  national  and  state

highways;

(ii) The prohibition contained in (i)  above shall  extend to and include

stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal

corporation, city, town or local authority;

(iii) The existing licences which have already been renewed prior to the

date of this order shall continue until the term of the licence expires

but no later than 1 April 2017;

(iv) All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor shall be

prohibited and existing ones removed forthwith both on national and

state highways;

(v) No shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from a national or

state  highway;  (ii)  directly  accessible  from  a  national  or  state

highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer

edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the

highway.  

(vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the

above directions.  The Chief  Secretaries  and Directors  General  of

Police shall  within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in

consultation  with  the  state  revenue  and  home  departments.

Responsibility shall be assigned  inter alia  to District Collectors and

Superintendents  of  Police  and  other  competent  authorities.

Compliance  shall  be  strictly  monitored  by  calling  for  fortnightly

reports on action taken.  

(vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution.  

Page 21

21

25 We dispose of the appeals and transfer petitions in the above terms.

There shall be no order as to costs.                            

                 ….......................................CJI

                             [T S  THAKUR]  

   ….............................................J                  [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]

                ...........................................J                   [L NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi December 15, 2016.