REP. BY SEC. AND ORSversusK. BALU & ANR.

                             [2017] 5 S.C.R. 388



A                      THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                          REP. BY SEC. AND ORS
                                       v.
                              K. BALU & ANR.
     (IA Nos. 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21,22-24,25-27,28-30,
B                        31-33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42)              .
                                       In
                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of2016)
                              MARCH 31, 2017

c              [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI,
    DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.)
          Liquor:
           State and National Highways - Liquor vends - Road accidents
    - Drunken driving cases - On I 5'" December 2016, in State of
D    Tamil Nadu v. KBalu, certain directions were passed by this Court
    for stopping grant of licences for sale of liquor along the national
    and state highways and over a distance of 500 meters from the
    outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside and I" April
    2017 was fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences - Interim
E
    applications filed for extension of time for compliance in certain
    cases or modification or as the case may be recalling the judgment
    delivered by this court - Plea that it was not appropriate for this
    court to prescribe a fixed distance of 500 metres since the
    topographic and geographical conditions of each State are distinct
    which is why excise rules across the country prescribe varying
F   distances from the highways for location of liquor shops - Held:
     The menace of driving and resultant fatalities or injuries are not
    confined only to national highways - Where an excise rule which
    has been formulated by a state government provides for the
    maintenance of a specified distance from an institution or amenity.
G   what this postulates is that no licence can be granted at all by the
    State Government within that distance - The state has a discretion
     on whether a licence should be granted under its enabling powers
    - No individual can assert a right to the grant of a licence - The
    directions issued by this Court did not breach any norm in the nature
     of a prohibition nor did they operate to lift a prohibition imposed
H    by law - The effect and purport of the direction is that in the interest
                                      388
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                        389
                  K. BALU & ANR.

of public safety and public health, the distance from the outer edge A
of national or state highways or a service lane along the highway
is to be maintained of 5 00 metres - This does not a111ount to
assumption of a legislative function by the Court - In fact the
requirement of maintaining a distance from the highway ensures
that the prohibition on the grant of licences along the highway is
                                                                     B
not defeated by the presence of outlets in close proximity to the
highway - The maintenance of an adequate buffer is a necessary
incident of the principle, which is to prevent ready availability of
liquor to users of a highway.
        Plea that the application of the prohibitory distance of 500
metres would cause serious hardship particularly if 111ore than one       c
state highway is found to intersect a municipal area - Held: The
judgment delivered by this Court on I 5 December 20 I 6 indicates a
rationale for not allowing the exe111ption for those segments of
national and state highways which fall within the limits of municipal
 or local authorities - This Court noted that such an exclusion would     D
defeat the policy since the availability of liquor along such stretches
 of national or state highways would merely allow drivers to replenish
 the stock of alcohol, resulting in a situation which the policy seeks
 to avoid - Apart fi·om areas along the national and state highways
 (or the stipulated distance of 500 metres), licences can be granted
 over other areas of the States and Union Territories subject tu          E
 compliance with the other requirements of the excise rules - The
 states are free to realise revenues from liquor I icences in the
 overwhelmingly large swathe of territories that lie outside the
 national and state highways and the buffer distance of 500 metres
 - The pernicious nature of the sale of liquor along the national and     F
 state highways cannot be ignored - Drunken driving is a potent
 source offatalities and injuries in road accidents - The Constitution
preserves and protects the right to life as an over-arching
 constitutional value - The preservation ofpublic health and ofpublic
 safety is an instrument of enhancing the right to life as a
 constitutionally protected value - Where a balance has to be drawn       G
 between protection of public health and safety and the need to
 protect road users from the menace of drunken driving (on the one
  hand) and the trade in liquor (on the other hand) the interests of
  the latter must be subordinate to the former - Public health - Right
 to life.                                                                 H
390           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 5 S.C.R.


A        Plea of the applicants is that the expert committee appointed
  by this Court recommended a distance of JOO metres with reference
  to highways. and therefore, in view of this recommendation this
  Court ought not to have fixed the minimum distance at 500 metres -
  Held: The recommendation of the Committee cannot be placed on a
  higher footing than what it purports lo be namely, a recommendation
B
  - The opinion of the Expert Committee was duly cited before this
  Court during the course of the proceedings leading upto the
  judgment dated 15 December 2016 - A distance of JOO metres .with
  reference to the highway is not adequate to ensure that users of the
  highway do not seek access to the sale of liquor in close proximity
c to the highway - A distance of merely 100 metres will not serve the
  purpose which is sought to be achieved - Therefore, that part of
   the recommendation of the Committee is not accepted.
          Limit of local body with population of 20,000 people - Plea
  that a state highway is the main thoroughfare area along which the
D township has developed in small clusters of 20, 000 or less and
  therefore, the requirement of maintaining a distance of 500 metres
  from the outer edge of the highway or service lane may result in a
  situation where the entire local area may fall within the prohibited
  distance - Held: Plea has some substance - Howeve1: it is clarified
   that even in such areas falling under local bodies with a population
E of less than 20, 000, no licence for the sale of liquor should be
   issued along either a national or state highway or a service lane
   along the highway - Similarly, the sale of liquor should be from a
  point which is neither visible from a national or state highway or
   which is directly accessible from a national or state highway -
F However, in such a situation, the prohibited distance should be
   restricted to 220 metres fi·om the outer edge of the national or state
   highway or of a service lane along the highway - In view thereof,
   direction modified and following paragraph inserted "In the case
   of areas comprised in local b,.odies with a population of 20, 000
  people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to
G 220 metres".                                                 ·
           Relaxation sought in respect of direction that existing licences
      renewed prior to the date of the order shall continue only until the
      term of the licence expires but not later than 1 April 2017 - Held:

 H
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                          391
                  K. BALU & ANR.

 This was 011 the basis that the excise year ends on 31 March with          A
the end of the financial year - This Court has been apprised during
the course of hearing that different states have periods of operation
for their excise years - Therefore, some. modification is warranted
due to prevalence of vm:ving excise years - In the ends of justice,
following direction is issued "In the case of those licences for the
                                                                            B
sale of liquor which have been renewed prior to 15 December 2016
and the excise year of the concerned state is to end on a date falling
on or after 1 April 2017, the existing licence shall continue until
 the term of the licence expires but in any event not later than 30
 September 2017" - In other words, no licence shall either be
granted or renewed or shall remain in operation in violation of the         c
direction of this Court beyond 30 September 2017 - Jn the State of
 Tamil Nadu, liquor vends are operated by TASMAC which is a state
 owned entity - In the judgment of this Court, time until 1 April,
 2017 was granted on the request of the State - Therefore. any further
 extension is not granted to the State of Tamil Nadu - In relation to
                                                                            D
 the State of Sikkim, the State Government stated that nearly 82% of
 the area of the state is forested and 92% of the shops will have to
 be closed as a result of the directions of this Court - Similarly, the
 State of Meghalaya placed before this Court peculiar conditions
prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain - Insofar as the
 States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are concerned, if the two states            E
 are exempted only fi"om the application of the 500 metre distance
 requirement provided in the judgment of this Court on 15 December
 2016 - insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the
 exemption granted earlier in respect of areas falling under local
 bodies with a population of 20,000 will sufficiently protect the
                                                                            F
 interests of the State - No further relaxation granted over and above
 what is already stated in that regard.
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 4-6, 7-9, 10-
12, 13-15, 16-18, 19-21,22-24,25-27,28-30,31-33,34-36,37-39,40-42
in Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166of2016
                                                                            G
                                 WITH
       I.A. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in C.A. No. 12169 of2016
       with Civil Appeal No. 12170of2016
       and Other Unregistered I.A.s on board.
                                                                            H
392            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 5 S.C.R.


A
             Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG., A. Mariarputham,
      K. Ramakrishna Reddi, Advocate General,K. K.Venugopal,
      Subramonium Prasad, R.Venkata Ramani, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Salman
      Khurshid, P. P. Rao, Shyam Diwan, Raju Ramachandran, Sanjay R.
8     Hegde, Jaideep Gupta, S. Prabakaran. R. S. Suri, R. Basant, Ajit Kr.
      Sinha, A. K. Panda, C.A. Sundaram, ShekharNaphade. Nidhesh Gupta,
      A. K. Ganguli, Yashank Adhyeru, H. Ahmadi. Jayant Bhushan, C.
      S.Vaidyanathan,A.K. Sanghi, Sr.Advs., D. K. Thakur, Devadatt Kamat,
      AAGs., B. Balaji, Muthuvel Palani, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, V. G.
      Pragasam, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Ankur
c     Talwar, N. K. Perumal, H. D. Kumaravel, Ms.V.S.Lakshmi,
      A.Venayagan Balan. D. Das. R. B. Phookan, Ms. Neha T. Phookan.
      lshan Das, Shailesh Madiyal, Shariq Ahmed, Varinder Kumar Sharma,
      M. Ram Babu, Ashok Bannidinni, P.V.Saravana Raja, Meka Venkata
      Rama Krishna, Vamshi Rao, Subodh Kr.Pathak, Abhijeet Chattetjee.
 D    Ms.Shashi Ranjan, Adil Alvi, Ms.Devahuti Tamuli, Ms. Barnati Basak,
      Avijit Patnaik, Srisatya Mohanty, P.V. Dinesh, Ms. Sindhu T.P., Bineesh
      K, Rajendra Beniwal, Arushi Singh, Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita
      Subramoniam, Rahat Bansal, G. Prakash, Jishnu ML, Ram Sankar, Ms.
      V. J. Usha, Divya Solanki. P. Jegan, Rajaram Narayanan, R.V.
      Kameshwaran, Amo IN. Suryawanshi, Abhijit Chattopadhyay, Sandeep
 E    Lamsa, Sanjay Kumar Lal Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Nandini Sen,
      Suman Sengupta, Venkateshwar Rao Anumulu, Prabhakar Parnam, A run
      Singh, R.V.Kameshwaran, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.S. Rawat, G. S. Makker,
      Ms. A. Thanvi, Arish Singh Luthra, Dhruv Dewan. Vikshit Arora, Ms.
      Reena Choudhary, Koshubh Devmani. Ms.Ananya Ghosh, Mahesh
 F    Aga1wal, Abhinav Agrawal, Ms. Sadapuria Mukherjee, Munjal Bhatt,
      Ashutosh Dubey, Krishnendu Sarkar, Abhishek Chauhan, V. S.Rawat,
      Ms. Rajshri Dubey, Ms. Aruna Mathur,Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha
      Arputham, Amit Arora, P. V. Yogeshwaran, Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Suresh
      Ch.Tripathy, Prasenjit Keswani, Satyajit Saha, Sidharth Kaushik, (for
      Mrs. V.D. Khanna), Aashish Gupta, Dushyant Manocha, lshan Gaur,
 G    Aditya Mukherjee, Ms.Taruna Dhingra, S.S. Shroff, V.N.Raghupathy,
      Parikshit P. Angadi, Jayesh K.Unnikrishnan, Ms. Manju Das, Aviral
      Kashyap, Ms. Sasmita Tripathy, Aarohi Bhalla, Ardhendumauli Kumar
      Prasad, S. K. Das, R. Nedumaran, Ms. Suvira Lal, M.C.Dhingra, Ms.
      G.N.Rampal, Pijush Kant Roy, Ravi Kamal Gupta, Nikunj Dayal, Pramod
 H
       THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                          393
                      K. BALU & ANR.

 Dayal, Ms. Paya! Dayal, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, M. Paikaray, Sumanth            A
 Nookala, Goli Ramakrishna, Vinay Navare, Ms.Abha R.Sharma,
 Kaleeswaram Raj, Suvidutt M.S., Sai Deepak Iyer, Arnold Harvey,
 Ashutosh Nagar, Manoj V.George, 8. D. Das, Ms. Shilpa Liza George,
 Amit Masih, Tarun Kant Samantray, Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain,
 Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal (for Himinder Lal), Pankaj Pandey, Dr. Gajendra
                                                                                8
 Prasad Singh, S. Thananjayan, Jothimanian, V. K. Biju, Ranjan Mukherjee,
 Sidhartha Dave, V. Balaji, T. Ashok Kumar, Prashant Kenjale, Atul
 Sharma, Ms. Sripradha K., Rakesh K. Sharma, Yatish Mohan, Ms. Reena
 Yadav, Kedar Nath Tripathy, M.A. Aleem Majid, Sameer Parekh, Sum it
 Goel, Ms. Nandita Bajpai, Dr. Rajeev 8. Masodkar, Azeem Kalebudde,
 Ravi Sharma, Sum it Kumar, Sudhir Chand Srivastava, Ms. Diksha Rai,            c
 Raj Shekhar Rao, Sameer Dawar, Narender Singh Yadav, Ms. Hetu
 Arora Sethi, Yogesh Jagia, Amit Sood, Advs. for the appearing paiiies.

          The Order of the Comi was delivered by:
                                ORDER                                           D
         DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. On IS December, 2016,
  this Court delivered judgment in a batch of Civil Appeals originating
  from the State of Tamil Nadu and the States of Punjab and Haryana.
  The decision of this Court is reported as 'State of Tamil Nadu
  represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise                    E
  Department Vs. K.Balu 1• The issue which the Court addressed was
  the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the
  country. Official figures ofroad accidents, with their attendant fatalities
  and injuries provided the backdrop for the intervention of this Court.
  This Court adverted to the consistent policy of the Union Government to
  curb drunken driving and, as an incident of the policy, to remove liquor      F
  vends on national highways. The judgment of this Court concludes that
. there is no justification to allow liquor vends on state highways (while
  prohibiting them on national highways) having due regard to drunken
  driving being one of the significant causes of road accidents in
  India.Hence, by the judgment of this Court, the following directions have     G
  been issued for stopping the grant oflicences for the sale of liquor along
  national and state highways and over a distance of 500 metres from the
  outer edge of the highway or a service lane alongside. I April 2017 is
  fixed as the date for phasing out existing licences. The directions are
  1
      (2017) 2 sec 2s1
                                                                                H
394            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A     set out below:
            (i) Aii states and union territories shaIJ forthwith cease and desist
                from granting licences for the sale ofliquor along national and
                state highways;
            (ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include
B                stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a
                 municipal corporation, city, town or local authority;
            (iii) The existing licences which have already been renewed prior
                to the date of this order shall continue until the term of the
                 licence expires but no later than 1 April 2017;
 c
            (iv) All signages and advertisements of the availability of liquor
                shaIJ be prohibited and existing ones removed f01ihwith both
                on national and state highways;
            (v) No shop forthe sale of liquor shalJ be (i) visible from a national
                or state highway; (ii) directly accessibie from a national or
 D
                state highway and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres
                of the outer edge otthe national or state highway or of a service
                lane along the highway.
            (vi) All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce
                the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors
 E
                General of Police shaIJ within one month chalk out a plan for
                enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home
                departments. Responsibility shall be assigned inter alia to
                District Collectors and Superintendents of Police and other
                competent authorities. Compliance shaIJ be strictly monitored
 F              by calling for fortnightly reports on action taken.
            (vii) These directions issue under Article 142 of the Constitution."
             2. This clutch of applications, nearly 68 of them, have been filed
      basically for (i) extension of time for compliance, in certain cases; or(ii)
      modification or, as the case may be, recal Iing the judgment delivered by
 G    this Court.
             3. We may at the outset indicate that having regard to the nature
      and importance of the issue which finds reflection in the judgment
      delivered by this Comi and the significant element of public imerest that
      is involved in dealing with road accidents caused due to drunken driving
 H
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                        395
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

on the highways of the nation, we have heard arguments extensively on A
29 and 30 March, 20 l 7 so that the matter can be addressed before the
deadline of 1April2017. Some States and private parties who were not
before the Court in the course of the original proceedings urged that
their submissions in regard to the directions issued by this Court should
be taken into account. Hence, we were of the view that in the interest
                                                                            B
of fairness it would be appropriate to enable a dispassionate consideration
of their perspectives in order to determine whether any modification is
required and if so, the nature of the modification that may be warranted
in the final judgment of this Court. We have, therefore. not been
trammelled by the technicality of whether these 'Interlocutory
Applications' would be maintainable in a proceeding which has been c
disposed of. Having regard to the importance of the issues which have
been addressed in the judgment and order, we were of the considered
view that this Court should have the benefit of the assistance rendered
by States who have moved this Court and of parties with diverse
perspectives so as to facilitate an outcome which is both just and is
                                                                            D
a1Tived at after a fair hearing. We have accordingly proceeded to.follow
that line of action and have been assisted over the previous two dates of
hearing by learned counsel who have brought to bear on their task a
considerable degree of industry on the subject.
      4. For convenience ofreference, we may indicate that eight States
                                                                           E
(besides the Union Territory of Pondicherry) have moved this Court in
the present proceedings. The States which are before the Comi are :
             1. Andhra Pradesh
             2. Himachal Pradesh
             3. Karnataka                                                  F
             4. Kerala
             5.Sikkim
             6. Telangana
             7. Meghalaya                                                  G

             8. Tamil Nadu
       5. We may indicate that the following States have not filed any
applications :
                                                                           H
396            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A                 1. Arunachal Pradesh
                  2. Assam
                  3. Bihar
                  4. Chhattisgarh
B                 5. Goa
                  6. Gujarat
                  7. Haryana
                  8. Madhya Pradesh
 c                9. Maharashtra
                  10. Manipur
                   11.Mizoram
                   12. Nagaland
D
                   13. Odisha
                   14. Punjab
                   15. Rajasthan
                   16. Tripura
 E
                   17. Uttar Pradesh
                   18. West Bengal
             6. During the course of the proceedings, an affidavit has been
      filed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
 F    stating that the judgment rendered by this Court has been accepted by
      the State Government, following a resolution by the Council ofMinisters
      on 16 January 2017. The Chief Secretary informs the Court that :
            "In compliance of the order of 15 December, 2016 passed by the
            Hon'ble Supreme Com1 of India, New Delhi, in Civil Appeal
 G          No.12164-12166/2016, the Council of Ministers of Madhya
            Pradesh, in its meeting at t 61h January has ensured to comply in
            the Excise Policy Year 2017-18 that there shall be no Liquor Shop
            situated within a distance of 500 Metre from the service lane of
            the National/State Highways. No Liquor Shop shall be visible or
            accessible directly from the National/State Highways. Any signage
 H
   THE STATE.OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                               397
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       or Board or advertisement depicting the availability of the liquor        A
       in any form shall be prohibited.                                ·
      The Government of Madhya Pradesh, Commercial Tax
      Department, has issued order of aforesaid intent regarding to the
      location of Liquor Shops at National/State Highways in point No.4
      of its order No.F.B.-01-0112017/2/Five, dated J7 1h January 2017.          B
      (Copy of the order is attached)
      For general information of the said provisions to the Public
      instructions of aforesaid intent have been issued in respect to
      disposal of retail sale shops of country/foreign liquor, A1Tangements
      year 2017-18, which have been published in Madhya Pradesh                  c
      Gazette (Extra Ordinary) No.27 dated 18 January 2017".
      7. On behalf of the Delhi Tourism Development Corporation it
has been stated that out of the 547 vends for liquor, 14 are in breach of
the 500 metre norm. A Committee was constituted for the shifting of
these liquor vends, and the process has begun. An extension of six               D
months has been sought.
       8. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh informed the Court that the State
Government has accepted the judgment and is accordingly withdrawing
the Interlocutory Application filed by it. I.A.D.No. 11840 is accordingly        E
dismissed as withdrawn.                ·
       9. The State ofTelangana has similarly informed the Court that
under its excise policy, the excise year is to end on 30 September. The
limited prayer before the Court is an extension of time for compliance so
as to facilitate the expiry of the current licences at the end of the excise
                                                                                 F
year on 30 September 2017.
        I 0. Besides the States listed earlier, the Court has also been seized
oflnterlocutory Applications instituted by individual licencees ofliquor
or, as the case may be, of associations representing the interests of the
trade.
                                                                                 G
       11. The principle line of submission addressed before this Court
by the learned Attorney General for India (appearing on behalf of the
State of Tamil Nadu) is that the judgment rendered by this Court has
transgressed the limitations on the constitutional power conferred by
Article 142. The basis on which this submission has been urged is that
                                                                                 H
398             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A     the excise rules which are framed by different States under their enabling
      legislative powers prescribe distances for the location of liquor shops
      with reference to the highways. For instance, it has been stated that the
      distance prescribed in certain state excise rules is 220 metres. Similarly
      an exemption is available for municipal and local areas through which a
      segment of a highway passes. It has been urged that the prescription of
 B
      distance under the state excise rules is interfered with by the directions
      issued by this Court which prohibit shops for the sale of liquor within a
      distance of500 metres from the outer edge of national or state highways
      or of a service lane along the highway. The learned Attorney General
      submits that topographic and geographical conditions of each State are
 c    distinct, which is why excise rules across the country prescribe varying
      distances from the highways for location of liquor shops. Hence it has
      been urged that it is not appropriate for this Comi to prescribe a fixed
      distance of 500 metres. The Attorney General urge that the Committee
      appointed by this Court (chaired by Justice S.Radhakrishnan, a former
      Judge of this Court) recommended a distance only of I 00 metres. The
 D
      eJTor, in the submission of the Attorney General, lies in comparing national
      and state highways. Moreover, it is urged that even ifthe prohib.ition
      were to apply to both national and state highways, an exemption ought
      to be provided forthe location of liquor shops in municipal areas through
      which the state highways traverse. Alternately, it was urged that a
 E     smaller prohibition in terms of distance would be appropriate in relation
      to state highways. The Attorney General has confined his submission to
      the state highways only.
             12. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel has urged that
      the judgment rendered by this Court is unconstitutional and is in the
 F    nature ofjudicial policy making.
             13. The Union ofindia is represented in these proceedings (as in
      the proceedings which led to the judgment dated 15 December 2016) by
      Shri Panda. Shri Panda has unequivocally asserted that the Union
      government stands by the judgment rendered by this Court on 15
 G    December2016. Shi Panda has submitted that the judgment is supported
      by the consistent policy and advisories of the Union government to the
      states to curb drunken driving and to prohibit the sale of liquor along
      national highways.
             14. In dealing with these submissions, we must at the outset notice
 H    that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction has neither formulated
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                             399
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

policy nor (as we shall indicate) has it assumed a legislative function. A
The basis and foundation of the judgment delivered on 15 December
2016 is (i) the policy of the Union Government, formulated by the Union
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH); (ii) the decision
of the National Road Safety Council (NRSC), which is an apex body for
road safety established under Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
                                                                             B
1988; (iii) advisories issued by the Uniori Government to the states over
a period of one decade; and (iv) the Parliamentary mandate of zero
tolerance for driving under the influence of alcohol, evident in Section
185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment of this Court
extensively reproduced the statistics on road accidents from official data
released by MoRTH in its Transport Research Wing, the decisions of C
NRSC and the advisories issued over the previous decade by the Union
Government. The judgment of this Court has inter alia adverted to the
decision taken in a meeting held thirteen years ago by NRSC to the
effect that licences for liquor shops should not be given along the national
highways. Besides this, the Court has also relied upon advisories issued
                                                                             D
by MoRTH to the States and Union Territories on 26 October 2007, I
December 2011, 18 March 2013 and 21 May 2014. Section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act is indicative of a Parliamentary intent to penalise
driving under the influence ofalcohol. The conclusions which have been
drawn by this Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment, which we extract
below are hence based, on the considered policy of the Union E
Government : ·
      "9. The material which has been placed on record indicates that:
      (i) India has a high rate of road accidents and fatal road accidents
          - one of the advisories states that it is the highest in the world
          with an accident occurring every four minutes;                       F
      (ii) There is a high incidence of road accidents due to driving
          under the influence of alcohol;
       (iii) The existence of liquor vends on national highways is in the
           considered view of the National Road Safety Council and             G
           MoRTH- expert authorities with domain knowledge - a cause
           for road accidents on national highways;
       (iv) Advisories have been issued to the State Governments and
           Union Territories to close down liquor vends on national
           highways and to ensure that no fresh licences are issued in the
                                                                               H
400            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A              future ... "
             Having said this the Court observed that there is no logical basis
      to distinguish between national and state highways. The menace of
      drunken driving and the resultant fatalities or injuries are not confined
      only to national highways. Hence, the judgment of this Com1 is neither
 B    an exercise of the court having.formulated a policy orofhaving embarked
      upon a legislative exercise.
          15. The submission of the Attorney General (representing the State
  of Tamil Nadu) and of other learned senior counsel who adopted the
  same line of argument, which is based on the state excise rules is lacking
c in substance. The state excise rules contain enabling provisions. They
  provide for a discretion for the grant ofliquor licences. No individual has
  a vested right to obtain a Iicence. There is no fundamental right to carry
  on business in liquor since as a matter of constitutional doctrine, Article
   19( 1)(g) does not extend to trade in liquor which is consistently regarded
  as res extra commercium. Where an excise rule which has been
D formulated by a state government provides for the maintenance of a
  specified distance from an institution or amenity, what this postulates is
  that no licence can be granted at all by the State Government within that
  distance. The state has a discretion on whether a licence should be
  granted under its enabling powers. No individual can assert a right to the
E grant of a licence: trading in liquor is a privilege conferred by the state.
  The directions which have been issued by this Com1 do not breach any
  norm in the nature of a prohibition nor do they operate to lift a prohibition
  imposed by law. The effect and purport of the directions is that in the
  interest of public safety and public health, the distance from the outer
  edge of national or state highways or a service lane along the highway is
F to be maintained of 500 metres. This does not amount to the assumption
  of a legislative function by the Court. In fact the requirement of
  maintaining a distance from the highway (which even according to the
  submission of counsel is adopted in a large number of states) ensures
  that the prohibition on the grant of licences along the highway is not
G defeated by the presence of outlets in close proximity to the highway.
  The maintenance of an adequate buffer is a necessary incident of the
   principle, which is to prevent ready availability of liquor to users of a
  highway. In any event, no private individual can be heard to make a
  grievance of the prescription of500 metres which is manifestly in public
   interest.
 H
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                              401
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD. J.]

        16. In the teeth of the statistics on road accidents which are made     A
available to the court by MoRTH, we are not inclined to accept the
submission ofShri K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel, that drunken
driving is not the most important cause of road accidents (over-speeding
according to learned counsel being the main cause). Over-speeding can
also occur due to the driver being under influence of alcohol. Learned
                                                                                B
counsel urged that even in a 'dry' state like Gujarat, accidents occur dLie
to drunken driving. Apart from the questionable authenticity ofa private
web-site on the internet, we have considered it more appropriate to place
reliance on official data of MoRTH. It is also necessary to emphasise
that there is a tendency to under-report drunken driving as a cause of
accidents with a view not to prejudice the claims of victims or their heirs     c
to compensation. In fact even the data relied upon by Shri Venugopal
states that in 2011, the highest prevalence of accidents due to drunken
driving was in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. We therefore do not find any substance in the
submission.
                                                                                D
       17. The next aspect of the submissions urged before the Court by
learned senior counsel is that state highways traverse across towns,
cities and villages. It has been urged thatthe application of the prohibitory
distance ofSOO metres would cause serious hardship pa11icularly if more
than one state highway is found to intersect a municipal area. The
example of the city of Coimbatore was cited before this Court to urge           E
that where more than one highway intersects a municipal area the
obligation to observe a distance of 500 metres would operate to cause
serious prejudice. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
associations representing the liquor trade or, as the case may be, individual
licencees urged that a graduated solution which exempts those segments          F
of the state highways which traverse through villages, cities and towns
should be adopted. Shri Kapil Sibal, Shri Harish Salve, Dr AM Singhvi,
Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, as well as other learned
counsel suggested the same approach. As and by way of an example,
Shri Devdatt Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Karnataka informed the Court that under the state excise rules, an              G
exemption is provided from the application of a prescribed distance of
220 metres in the case of a municipality with a population of less than
20,000 people.
       18. To further buttress the submission, it was urged that the
                                                                                H
402             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 5 S.C.R.


A     direction which has been issued by the Court will result in a loss of
      revenue to the States. The direction, it was submitted, would result in
      individual hardship, in cases where the shifting of a liquor shop may not
      be possible due to geographical location or topography. Alternately, it
      was submitted that the shifting of a liquor shop may encounter other
      difficulties such as the presence of residential areas or the requirement
B
      of maintaining a stipulated distance from educational and religious
      institutions.
              19. The judgment delivered by this Court on 15 December 2016
      indicates a rationale and basis for not allowing the exemption for those
      segments of national and state highways which fall within the limits of
c     municipal or local authorities. This Court noted that such an exclusion
      would defeat the policy since the availability ofliquor along such stretches
      ofnational or state highways would merely allow drivers to replenish the
      stock of alcohol, resulting in a situation which the policy seeks to avoid in
      the first place the directions which have been issued by this Court restrain
 D    the grant of licences fc;ir the sale of liquor along national and state
      highways and within a stipulated distance of 500 metres of the outer
      edge of a highway or of a service lane along the state highway. Sale of
      liquor along the highways is not exhaustive of the broad canvas of areas
      in which licences which may be granted by a State. Apart from areas
      along the national and state highways (or the stipulated distance of500
 E    metres), licences can be granted over other areas of the States and
      Union Territories subject to compliance with the other requirements of
      the excise rules. No state has placed any data before the Court to indicate
      that no licence can be granted at all by it in an area other than along a
      state highway or the buffer distance prescribed. It would defy reason to
 F    assume that in municipal areas, availability of liquor is only along the
      segment of a highway. It may be attractive to the vendor to sell liquor
      along the highway but that is not the touchstone of a norm which protects
      public health and seeks to curb fatalities on the highways of the nation.
      The states are free to realise revenues from liquor licences in the
      ove1whelmingly large swathe of territories that lie outside the national
 G    and state highways and the buffer distance of 500 metres.
           20. The pernicious nature of the sale of liquor along the national
    and state highways cannot be ignored. Drunken driving is a potent source
    of fatalities and injuries in road accidents. The Constitution preserves
  t and protects the right to life as an over-arching constitutional value. The
 H
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                            403
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

preservation of public health and of public safety is an instrument of        A
enhancing the right to life as a constitutionally protected value. Where a
balance has to be drawn between protection of public health and safety
and the need to protect road users from the menace of drunken driving
(on the one hand) and the trade in liquor (on the other hand) the interests
of the latter must be subordinate to the former.
                                                                              B
       21. Another submission which has been urged on behalf of the
applicants is that the expert committee appointed by this Court (chaired
by Justice S Radhakrishnan, a former Judge of this Court) has
recommended a distance of I 00 metres with reference to highways. In
view of this recommendation it has been submitted that this Court ought
not to have fixed the minimum distance at 500 metres. We find no merit        c
in the submission. The recommendation of the Committee cannot be
placed on a higher footing than what it purports to be namely, a
recommendation. The opinion of the Expert Committee was duly cited
before this Court during the course of the proceedings leading upto the
judgment dated 15 December 2016. We are of the view that a distance           D
of I 00 metres with reference to the highway is not adequate to ensure
that users of the highway do not seek access to the sale of liquor in
close proximity to the highway. A distance of merely I 00 metres will not
serve the purpose which is sought to be achieved. Hence, we have not
accepted that part of the recommendation of the Committee but have
considered it appropriate to enhance the minimum distance.                    E

       22. After considering the submissions which have been urged
before this Court, we are of the view that there are three areas where
the rigors of the directions which have been issued by this Comt may
require to be suitably modulated without affecting the basic principle
underlying the judgment.. The first is in relation to limits oflocal bodies F
with a population of less than 20,000 people. In such areas, it has been
urged before this Court that a state highway is the main thoroughfare
area along which the township has developed in small clusters of20,000
or less. Hence, the requirement of maintaining a distance of500 metres
from the outer edge of the highway or service lane may result in a G
situation where the entire local area may fall within the prohibited distance.
We find some substance in the submission. We must emphatically clarify
that even in such areas falling under local bodies with a population of
less than 20,000, no licence for the sale ofliquor should be issued along
either a national or state highway or a service lane along the highway.
                                                                               H
404             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 5 S.C.R.



A     Similarl\. the sale ofliquor should be from a point which is neither visible
      from a national or state highway or which is directly accessible from a
      nation;,_! or state highway. However, in such a situation, the prohibited
      distanc·.: should in our view be restricted to 220 metres from the outer
      edge of the national or state highway or of a service lane along the
      highway. We accordingly direct that the following paragraph shall be
B
      inserted, after direction (v) in paragraph 24 of the operative directions of
      this Court in the judgment dated 15 December. 2016 namely :
            "In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population
      of20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced
      to 220 metres".
 c
              23. The second area upon which we propose to issue a relaxation
      is in respect of direction (iii) contained in paragraph 24 of the judgment
      of this Court. This Court has directed that existing licences which have
      been renewed prior to the date of the order shall continue only until the
      term of the licence expires but not later than I April 2017. Th is was on
 D    the basis that the excise year ends on 31 March with the end of the
      financial year. This Court has been apprised during the course of hearing,
      that different states have different periods of operation for their excise
      years. Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel, urged that the implementation
      of the directions should be carried out so as to inflict 'minimum pain' on
 E    the trade, which is not illegal. For instance, our attention has been drawn
      to the fact that the excise year in Telangana commences on l October
      and ends on 30 September of the following year. In the State of Andhra
      Pradesh, the excise year is stated to end on 30 June. Licencees to whom
      licences have been allotted prior to the date of the judgment would have
      made their investments. The cut-off date of l April 2017 was intended
 F    to protect such individuals. However, some modification is warranted
      due to the prevalence of varying excise years. In our view, the ends of
      justice would be met by issuing the following direction in continuation of
      direction (iii) in paragraph 24 of the judgment of this Court:
             "In the case of those licences for the sale of liquor which have
 G    been renewed prior to 15 December 2016 and the excise year of the
      concerned state is to end on a date falling on or after 1 April 2017, the
      existing licence shall continue until the term of the licence expires but in
      any event not later than 30 September 2017''.
              In other words, no licence shall either be granted or renewed or
 H    shall remain in operation in violation of the direction of this Comt beyond


         ,
   THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SEC. AND ORS v.                             405
     K. BALU & ANR. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

30September2017.                                                               A
      24. In the State of Tamil Nadu, liquor vends are operated by
TASMAC which is a state owned entity. In the judgment of this Court,
time until I April, 2017 was granted on the request of the State. Hence,
we decline to grant any further extension to the State of Tamil Nadu.
       25. The third area is in relation to the States of Sikkim (argued by    B
Shri A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel) and Meghalaya which have
moved this Court for a suitabl~ modification of the judgment having regard
to the nature of the hilly terrain. In relation to the State of Sikkim, this
Court has been apprised on behalf of the State Government that nearly
82 per cent of the area of the state is forested and 92 per cent of the        c
shops will have to be closed as a result of the directions of this Court.
Similarly, the State ofMeghalaya has placed before this Court peculiar
conditions prevailing in the State as a result of the hilly terrain. We are
of the view that insofar as the States of Meghalaya and Sikkim are
concerned, it would suffice ifthe two states are exempted only from the
application of the 500 metre distance requirement provided in paragraph        D
24(v)(iii) of the judgment of this Court on 15 December 2016.
       26. Insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, we
are of the view that the exemption which has been granted earlier in
respect of areas falling under local bodies with a population of 20,000
will sufficiently protect the interests of the State. No further relaxation    E
is granted over and above what has already been stated in that regard.
       27. Finally we clarify that we are not inclined to issue a direction
in terms as sought by Shri Aryama Sundaram, learned senior counsel
and other counsel that the judgment of this Court should be clarified so
as to apply only to shops involving sale ofliquor. Since the object oftlie     F
direction is to prevent drunken driving, no such relaxation can be made
which would defeat the object which is sought to be achieved.
Consequently, the directions issued by this Court cannot be read down,
as suggested. The directions shall be read, as they sta11d.
       28. We accordingly dispose of this batch of Interlocutory               G
applications in terms of the above. The Civil Appeal shall stand disposed
of in terms of the judgment dated 15 December 2016 and the order
passed today.