The Supreme Court has reconsidered its earlier ban on liquor shops within 500 metres of national and state highways and has reduced the limit to 220 metres in areas where the population is less than 20,000. Several states have filed petitions against the previous order of the apex court in December 2016. In all other matters related to the ruling the Court remained adamant. However, the Court has exempted two states, Meghalaya and Sikkim on account of their topography.
Chief Justice, J S Khehar has further observed that liquor licences obtained before the December judgment will remain valid till September 30, but the licence holders have to comply with the other directives regarding distance from highways. The Court ruled that licenses would be revoked from April 1.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had previously contested that prohibition should not apply to pubs and bars but the apex court refused to relax the rules and stated that the same rules apply to everyone.
It will be interesting to see how the Meghalaya Government addresses the issue henceforth and whether it will on its own volition redefine the term “national highway.” At the moment, there are hotels in downtown Shillong which cannot serve alcohol because they are said to be located along the national highway. Can a one way road in the heart of a town be called a national highway at this point in time? While there are many who celebrate the liquor ban there is also the question of free choice and the outcomes of prohibition in Mizoram and Nagaland which has led to drug addiction on a large scale. These are questions that the Government should be exercising its mind on, revenue generation being the least of the concerns.