Highway liquor ban: Centre considers presidential reference on SC's order

Stakeholders are already questioning the applicability of the verdict to their own establishments

While the Centre is considering seeking a Presidential Reference on the recent Supreme Court judgment banning the sale of liquor within 500 metres of state and national highways, stakeholders are already questioning the applicability of the verdict to their establishments. 

One view taken by the liquor lobby is that the apex court’s order does not apply to hotels, restaurants or bars, but only to retail liquor stores. Supporting this argument is the fact that the judgment does not explicitly mention the type of enterprises to which the restriction applies, and instead uses the term “liquor vends”. 

The use of this generic term has now added an interpretational aspect to the issue, which has otherwise been taken up by various state governments on excise, revenue and job loss considerations. 

After much debate over implications of the December 15, 2016, verdict, the states finally managed to secure a modification of the original order to reduce the prescribed limit of 500 metres to 220 metres for local areas with populations under 20,000. 

The date for implementation was also delayed to September 30 for those states where the computation of the excise year extends beyond April 1, and exceptions to the ban were made for heavily forested states such as Meghalaya and Sikkim. Though the hotel and restaurant sector is harping on the wording of the decision, states such as Punjab, Rajasthan and Maharashtra are not taking any chances and have de-notified several stretches of highways to ‘urban roads’ to continue liquor operations in these areas. 

Chandigarh, which had previously notified all major roads as state highways to receive central funding, has also decided to re-classify them as major district roads to avoid the ban. 

Senior advocate Manish Tiwari is of the opinion that the judgment applies to all establishments selling liquor and not off-shops alone. 

“The verdict applies to anything (that has) to do with alcohol. It is a step to rid the highways of the menace of alcohol-related accidents. The people crying hoarse over technicalities do not understand the intent and purpose of the judgment,” says Tiwari. Senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal also agrees with this understanding. 

Even in the wording of the decision, the apex court has said the intent of the judgment is to  prevent the ready accessibility of liquor on the highways, and used the phrase “no sale of liquor” while imposing the restrictions on all areas, including municipal corporations, towns, cities and local authorities.  Nonetheless, many stakeholders seem to think the judgment, and its subsequent clarification on March 31, transgresses the limits on the constitutional power of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. 

Senior advocate C A Sundaram says the apex court’s initial decision only applied to liquor shops and vends, but its scope was expanded by the clarification in a manner which was not warranted in the original order.  Apart from the proposed Presidential Reference, there is also a possibility of a review petition to exempt hotels and restaurants from the ban.  If the reference route is adopted, the apex court still has the option of refusing to answer any of the questions raised. The same applies to entertaining a review.