REP. BY SEC. AND ORS versus K. BALU & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 31-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 388 
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, 
31-33, 34-36, 37-39, 40-42) 
. 
In 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 12164-12166 of2016) 
MARCH 31, 2017 
[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 
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 
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 
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 
H 
of a prohibition nor did they operate to lift a prohibition imposed 
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. 
K. BALU & ANR. 
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 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 
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 
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 
389 
A 
B 
c 
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 
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 
state highways cannot be ignored - Drunken driving is a potent 
source of fatalities and injuries in road accidents - The Constitution 
preserves and protects the right to life as an over-arching 
constitutional value - The preservation of public health and of public 
safety is an instrument of 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.