After hearing the matter for around 90 minutes all the arguments opposing the ban, the CJI posted the matter for Thursday when he would continue hearing the issue
After standing up the states and several liquor associations, the Supreme Court finally held an urgent hearing on pleas that challenged the December 15, 2016 order which mandated the closure of liquor vends along state and national highways from April 1.
A batch of petitions that reached the Supreme Court read that the proposed 500 metre distance from the state and national highways, after which liquor vends can be set up, is high and should be reduced.
Many senior advocates representing interested parties crowded Court number 1 and unanimously sought a modification of the December order. A bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar along with Justices L Nageshwara Rao and DY Chandrachud heard from a battery of lawyers who all submitted that the blanket ban should be modified and appropriate measures to be taken after considering the topography of each state.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was speaking for two states including Kerala, submitted that the closure of the liquor vends would result in “incalculable loss of revenue to the states.” Rohatgi said that a distance of 500 metres would result in different outcome in different states. In Goa, Rohatgi said, 500 metres would mean virtually in the “middle of the sea.” Another state submitted that state highways were small and crisscrossed, hence logistically, it would be difficult to relocate the liquor vends.
“States follow different excise policy that have indigenous rules, let that be considered instead,” Rohatgi added. “A blanket ban is not going to achieve the intended purpose. What can be done is accident prone spots can be identified and the ban could be tweaked accordingly,” Rohatgi said.
Advocate like Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Harish Salve, Rajeev Dhawan, Salman Khurshid and many others supported the idea of tweaking the order and enforcing the ban at problematic spots.
After hearing the matter for around 90 minutes all the arguments opposing the ban, the CJI posted the matter for Thursday when he would continue hearing the issue. “Rest assured we do not want to be any impediment in your earning revenue. But drunken driving, a person dying is dead and gone. Imagine about his family. We are not against revenue earning by you. But suggest some alternative. We want to balance it,” CJI Khehar said.
In a move to curb the menace of drunken driving, the Supreme Court banned liquor shops along national and state highways. Stressing the importance and the need to improve road safety, a bench led by then-Chief Justice of India TS Thakur further ordered that no liquor shops can operate or been seen within 500 metres of the highways.
Liquor shops that are functional have been allowed to operate till April 1, 2017, however, licenses will be not be renewed or issued post March 31, 2017. The bench has ordered the chief secretaries of all the states to chalk out a plan to enforce the ban in consultation with excise and municipal officials.
The SC gave this directive in response to a PIL filed by the NGO Arrive Safe. According to the NGO, around 1.42 lakh people were killed in road accidents, a majority of which were caused by drunk driving. The NGO claimed that the easy availability of liquor along highways was one of the main reasons for road accidents.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}