SC may relook at liquor order

Several states including Telangana have challenged the the SC order banning liquor shops within 500 metres of highways to prevent accidents.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it will have a re-look at the December 2016 order banning liquor shops within 500 metres of state and national highways across the country, with a view to preventing accidents caused due to drunken driving.

With the court giving a deadline of March 31 for closure of all the liquor shops located on highways, several states and liquor shop licences have sought a modification of the order and to extend the time limit by six to eight months to comply with the order.

A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao told a battery of lawyers representing states and liquor merchants and owners of restaurants and hotels serving liquor that court will consider passing an order keeping in mind the safety of citizens and revenue of states.

Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, Tamil Nadu are some of the states that had sought a modification of the order.

The All Assam Indian Made Foreign Liquors Retailers’ Association wanted modification of the order, saying it virtually banned liquor shops in the state, as the definition of state highways in the local statute included all roads.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it will have a re-look at the December 2016 order banning liquor shops within 500 metres of state and National highways with a view to prevent accidents caused due to drunken driving.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu and TS, Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the order passed without hearing all the States must be modified.

He said implementing the order by relocating the liquor shops that are within 500 metres of state or national highways will result in incalculable loss of revenue and loss of employment to lakhs of persons.

The CJI told counsel that the court had passed an order keeping in mind that over 30,000 road accidents take place more because of drunken driving.

“These accidents not only took away bread-winners in families but also result in serious injuries. We are not averse to modify our order keeping in mind the interest of safety and states revenue,” the CJI said.