On January 19, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed the Rajasthan High Court's order to remove 1,102 liquor outlets within 500 metres of highways in two months. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the High Court’s safety concerns are "absolutely genuine" due to many deaths caused by drunken driving. But the court felt the broad order requires closer judicial scrutiny. The order came from a petition by Ram Swaroop Yadav, who said the High Court gave no chance for affected parties to be heard. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the order was based on one village’s case but had statewide impact without consulting stakeholders. He added, "The judge has passed an order for the entire State without hearing anybody. The State is supporting me." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Rajasthan, pointed out the practical problems in enforcing the ban. Many cities lie along highways, so a 500-metre restriction would remove liquor stores from large urban areas, including cities like Chandigarh. The Supreme Court issued notices on the appeal and stayed the High Court's order until further decision. It emphasized it did not overlook public safety or the rise in road deaths linked to alcohol. Justice Mehta noted surrogate ads promoting liquor near highways, saying billboards often hint alcohol is available nearby with arrows. Mehta added, "Now, the only hoarding is an arrow. Those who know, know what the arrow means." The Rajasthan High Court order had criticized the State for promoting "liquor-friendly corridors" along highways. Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Sanjeet Purohit ordered all liquor shops within 500 metres of national or State highways to shut or relocate within two months, regardless of municipal jurisdiction. This followed a 2023 PIL by Churu residents alleging violations of the Excise Act by liquor shops near highways. The High Court relied on a 2016 Supreme Court ruling banning liquor shops within 500 metres of highways, but the top court later clarified licensed liquor shops inside municipal areas are exempt, leaving such decisions to States. The matter remains under judicial review as the Supreme Court weighs safety against feasibility and legal rights.