Introduction:

In the landmark case titled Kanhaiya Lal Soni & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Rajasthan High Court was confronted with a disturbing yet pressing public policy dilemma concerning the unchecked proliferation of liquor shops along National and State Highways and the resultant alarming spike in vehicular accidents caused by alcohol-influenced driving. The petitioners, alarmed by spiraling accident statistics and the normalization of liquor access along high-speed corridors, approached the Court seeking judicial intervention to enforce the constitutional duty of the State to protect road safety. The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit examined whether the State’s exercise of limited discretionary power—earlier carved out by the Supreme Court—had been misused to justify the existence of liquor shops within prohibited zones near highways. The petitioners contended that the State had exceeded its authority, manipulated municipal boundaries, and blatantly violated the Supreme Court’s binding ratio in the seminal judgment of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, which categorically prohibited liquor retail outlets within 500 meters of the outer edge of any national or state highway in light of the rising number of fatal accidents attributable to alcohol consumption and overspeeding. The petitioners contended that the rampant existence of liquor shops along highways frustrated core constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, and that the State’s statutory responsibility to regulate intoxicants under Article 47 was being circumvented under the guise of discretionary administrative interpretation. They further argued that the State had weaponized the Supreme Court’s subsequent clarification, which permitted discretion to regulate establishments located within municipal areas, to embark upon an arbitrary and revenue-driven expansion of liquor vending permissions by artificially reclassifying territories that were primarily rural or semi-urban stretches of highways as falling within municipal limits. Consequently, the petitioners asserted that while this reclassification may have aided the State in enhancing its excise revenue, it did so at the cost of public safety, judicial sanctity, and constitutional morality.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners emphasized that road safety is not merely a matter of administrative commerce but a question of life and death, falling squarely within the protective framework of Article 21. They highlighted that the Supreme Court in K. Balu did not intend the discretion regarding municipal areas to transform into a fiscal loophole enabling indirect circumvention of judicial intent. They argued that Rajasthan, rather than acting as a custodian of safety norms, had converted the judgment into a revenue-extraction mechanism. The affidavit filed by the Excise Department revealed that 1102 liquor shops along National and State Highways had been permitted to operate under the pretext that they were technically located within local governing jurisdiction or municipal areas—thereby insulating them from K. Balu restrictions—leading to a staggering Rs. 2221.78 crores of revenue. The petitioners contended that such use of discretion was not only arbitrary but fundamentally unconstitutional, as it privileged economic motives over human survival. By contorting municipal boundaries and interpreting urban sprawl expansively, the State created fragmented islands of exceptions, defeating a uniform national road safety norm. They argued that the Court must intervene because the State’s actions exhibited culpable negligence, an egregious abdication of constitutional responsibility, and reckless disregard of established legal precedent. Furthermore, the petitioners underscored that access to liquor directly adjacent to highways incentivizes drunk driving, eliminates deterrence, and renders the judiciary’s public policy interventions meaningless. If highways—meant to facilitate rapid, uninterrupted, long-distance travel—become corridors of intoxication, then the rule of law collapses into a permissive culture of hazard, they asserted. The petitioners invoked empirical accident reports, government statistics, and case precedents to show that Rajasthan was witnessing a steep rise in road accidents, many of which were directly attributable to alcohol consumption combined with overspeeding. Accordingly, they urged the Court to restrain the State from prioritizing revenue over lives and mandate the removal or relocation of liquor shops, ensuring no advertisement, signage, or directional indicators promoting liquor remain visible to drivers.

Arguments of the Respondents (State):

The State of Rajasthan, represented through its Excise authorities, argued that it had not violated the Supreme Court mandate and that its actions remained well within the discretionary ambit sanctioned by the Apex Court. It justified its decisions by relying upon the Supreme Court’s clarification that the prohibition did not apply within municipal areas and submitted that the shops in question were operationally situated within recognized municipal or urban local body jurisdiction. The State argued that urbanization was rapidly expanding, and with changing demographics, it was impractical to apply a static prohibition radius uniformly across diverging geographical realities. The State further asserted that removal of such liquor shops would cripple excise revenue—an essential component of public finance used for welfare schemes, infrastructure, and governance expenses. They maintained that the Court must respect the doctrine of separation of powers, avoid judicial overreach, and leave policy formulation to the executive. The State submitted that there was no evidence linking every liquor shop near a highway to a specific accident and contended that the petitioners’ claims were anecdotal exaggerations lacking statistical certainty. They argued that complete elimination of liquor shops near highways would inflict disproportionate economic damage without guaranteeing a resultant decline in accidents, since intoxication could occur elsewhere. Hence, instead of elimination, the State claimed it was adopting a balanced regulatory approach.

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court emphatically rejected the State’s defense and issued one of the sternest judicial rebukes in recent times. The Division Bench held that the State had “miserably failed to discharge its constitutional duty”, had “shattered the fabric of safeguarding contemplated in the Supreme Court judgment”, and had treated the discretion conferred by the Supreme Court as an excuse to subvert regulatory purpose rather than uphold it. The Court declared that the government’s approach amounted to an institutional betrayal of public trust, and that the judiciary could no longer remain a passive spectator. The Bench reasoned that the Supreme Court’s intention in K. Balu was unequivocal—to ensure highways remained insulated from liquor availability, thus disincentivizing impulsive drinking and driving. The limited relaxation for municipal areas was never meant to be exploited through manipulative territorial classification. The Court observed that Rajasthan had turned this exception into a fertile revenue stream by sanctioning over a thousand liquor shops along highways, thereby making a “mockery of discretion”. Critically, the Court held that no revenue objective, however lucrative, can override the constitutional imperative of safeguarding human life, and reiterated that Article 21 is not a compromiseable asset. The Bench warned that treating intermittent stretches of highways as urban merely because municipal boundaries have expanded would completely defeat judicial intent. The State’s conduct, the Court noted, was not merely administratively careless but constitutionally regressive. It reminded the government that urban growth cannot serve as a Trojan horse to dismantle a national road safety shield. The Court concluded that the right to life prevailed over fiscal expediency and ordered the complete removal or relocation of all liquor shops situated within 500 meters of National or State highways within two months, irrespective of whether such areas were under municipal jurisdiction. Additionally, it prohibited the display of any advertisements, hoardings, or signages indicating liquor availability from being visible on highways, as such indirect inducement perpetuates intoxicated driving. Finally, the matter was listed for January 26, 2025, for compliance review, signaling that the Court intended strict monitoring and non-negotiable adherence to its directions. The judgment thus became a powerful reaffirmation of judicial precedence, constitutional morality, public safety jurisprudence, and the inviolability of human life vis-à-vis commerce-driven governance.