Can the 500-metre ‘no-liquor zone’ discourage a driver from reaching the nearest outlet?

As trouble brews and livelihoods suffer over the Supreme Court’s ban on retail liquor outlets and bars along the National and the State highways, practical issues raised in the courtroom by the Attorney General, the States and liquor traders on the adverse impact of a blanket ban have come alive, challenging the rationale of the court’s decision.

The March 31 order, which largely confirmed the December 15, 2016 judgment with certain modifications, said the ban was sourced from the court’s “overarching concern for public health”.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao dismissed warnings by lawyers that a “one-size-fits-all” approach would spell more harm than good.

Varied topography

The lawyers submitted before the court that the States must not be put under the guillotine, and an effort should be made to understand the topographical peculiarities of each State.

The two-day marathon hearings leading to the March 31 order saw lawyers question if the ban would end up as a “futile” attempt to prevent drunk driving.

“I can have a good drink before I leave home,” K.K. Venugopal, lawyer, said.

“Ninety per cent of the liquor vends are in the city and not in some godforsaken place outside the city limits. State Highways crisscross every small town and district headquarters in my State. Towns have developed rapidly. Small roads with shops on both sides form State highways due to the rapid rise in urbanisation,” Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing Tamil Nadu and Telangana, submitted.

Also Read Liquor ban: My way on the highway

He asked the court how the 500-metre “no-liquor zone” would discourage a person driving a vehicle from reaching the nearest available liquor vend. Challenging the court’s logic to remove liquor sales from highways, Mr. Rohatgi asked, “The liquor trade is not illegal, so why this prohibition? The States back it, the people back it.”

Mr. Venugopal argued how the States would lose revenue.

“This revenue was meant to better education in the States. Look at the macro picture. This is not just a question of road accidents,” he said.

Central studies

“This ban is unconstitutional,” senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan had submitted. He pointed out that the ban was based on Central government studies alone and should be confined to the National highways. “But you [the court] went on a limb by transferring the ban from the National highways to the State highways,” he said.

Countering these arguments, the Bench observed that the States did not have any “indefeasible right” to grant licences and no one was entitled to a liquor licence.

“Besides, it can’t be the principle that you can’t drink and drive on a National Highway but can do so on a State highway,” Justice Chandrachud had observed.

The Chief Justice said very few States — eight of them — had challenged the ban, thus making it clear that the majority of the other States were “completely for the judgment”.