In 2016, the Supreme Court ordered a countrywide ban on the sale of liquor along National and State Highways to check the “menace” of drunken driving.
But subsequent appeals seeking exemption on various grounds has considerably diluted the essence of the original ruling.
How did the ruling evolve?
High Courts of Tamil Nadu and Haryana had ruled for the removal of liquor shops along the national and state highways to avoid accidents.
The respective state governments took the case to the Supreme Court, which heard these cases together and subsequently upheld the High Court orders.
Additionally, restrictions that the liquor shops should not be accessible or visible from the National or State Highways was also placed.
Hence, a stipulated distance of 500 metres from the outer edge of the highway was mandated, which caused the closure of multiple outlets throughout India.
This ruling also saw some of the governments de-notifying state highways and declaring them as district roads to circumvent the liquor ban.
While there are inherent dangers in declassifying highways, a case against this wasn’t substantiated in the court as the states were within their rights to do so.
How has the verdict withered with time?
Various Appeals - Subsequent to the original verdict, most states sought exemptions for highway stretches that fell within towns.
Based on Tamil Nadu government’s plea – offset distance from the highway was relaxed from 500m to 220m in areas populated with over 20,000 people.
States like Sikkim argued that 82% of its area was forests, and 92% of liquor shops would have to be shut down if the order was to be implemented.
Hence, hilly states of Sikkim, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh were exempted from this rule, keeping in view their peculiar topography.
Kerala’s Case - Kerala argued that its “geography and settlement pattern” was unique, and asked the court to consider the entire state as a “single city”.
Notably, Kerala is a densely populated state, consisting of a large number of national and state highways within its narrow east-west spread.
Settlements in most parts of the state are continuous stretches with little infrastructure difference between urban and rural areas.
Also, as 30% of its land is forested and as its tourism dependent economy will take a hit if liquor ban is strictly enforced, Kerala made a strong case for itself.
Final Order - Ultimately, the courts comprehensively permitted liquor shops on highways if they fell within the municipal jurisdictions of a town or city.
Additionally, it was left to the states to decide whether to permit liquor sales on highways within panchayat limits.
