Jaipur, Jan. 20 -- The Supreme Court on Monday stayed an interim order by the Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan high court, which had directed the removal and relocation of 1,102 liquor shops along national and state highways in Rajasthan, including those within municipal and urban local body limits. A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta granted the interim stay while hearing a batch of special leave petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan and several liquor licence holders challenging the high court's order dated November 24, 2025. In its interim judgement, the Rajasthan high court had directed the State government to identify, remove, and shift all liquor vends located within 500 metres of national and state highways, irrespective of whether they fell within municipal limits, local self-governing bodies, or statutory development authorities. The high court observed that expansion of municipal limits could not dilute the safety norms laid down by the Supreme Court for liquor vends near highways. Expressing serious concern over road safety, it relied on accident statistics linking alcohol availability near highways to increased road accidents. The high court further held that public safety and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail over revenue considerations, even while noting the State's submission on a potential revenue loss of around Rs.2,100 crore. It directed the State to relocate all such liquor shops within a stipulated time frame and to file compliance affidavits. Appearing for the State of Rajasthan, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, along with additional advocate general Shiv Mangal Sharma, argued that the high court had reimposed an absolute 500-metre ban, contrary to the Supreme Court's binding clarifications following its landmark judgement in State of Tamil Nadu v. K Balu. Sharma submitted that subsequent Supreme Court orders-dated March 31, 2017, July 11, 2017, and February 23, 2018-had relaxed the original directions, reducing the distance norm to 220 metres on certain roads and excluding liquor establishments within municipal limits from the blanket prohibition, subject to the State government's factual assessment. It was further contended that, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high court could not override the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. The State argued that the apex court had vested discretion in State governments to regulate liquor vends within municipal areas, and such discretion could not be curtailed by the High Court. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Naveen Pahwa appeared for various liquor licence holders, who had also challenged the High Court order. They raised similar objections, arguing that the interim directions would disrupt existing licences, cause substantial financial losses, and contradict the Supreme Court's settled position. The licence holders' petitions were listed with the State's and heard together by the Supreme Court. After hearing submissions from all parties, the Court stayed the Rajasthan high court's interim order, granting immediate relief to the State government and affected liquor licence holders. With the stay in place, the directions to shift the 1,102 liquor shops from highways will not be implemented for now. Additional advocate general Shiv Mangal Sharma said the matter will be heard further after pleadings are complete. The case is likely to have significant implications for liquor policy, road safety regulations, and judicial intervention in administrative decisions on municipal areas across the country....