State Of Tamil Nadu v/s K Balu & Anr

State Of Tamil Nadu v/s K Balu & Anr


Citation - Civil No 12164-12166/2016

Bench of judges - Jagdish Singh Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud and L. Nageswara Rao

Court - Supreme Court of India, High Court of Madras, High Court of Punjab, ond High Court of Haryana  

Date of judgement - 1 April 2017 

Applicable of law - Article 142 and Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India 1949 and Section 185 and 215 of Motor Vehicles Act

Fact -

These present petition have arise under article 136 of the constitution from the judgment of the high court of madras, Punjab, Haryana respectively.

The issue which the Supreme Court is addressing in the case is about the presence of liquor vends on national and state highways across the country. The backdrop to the case provided by alarming statistics on the occurrence of road accident. They have claimed human lives and caused physically weakness and injury. Both on a personal scale (in terms of the injuries and loss of life) as well as social context. Restitution in the form of mandatory awards of compensation can never undo the physically injury of loss and the pain of suffering. The law can only a imperfectly suffering from the consequences of the road accident. In term of personal suffering cause to an individual and families as well as in term of deprivation cause to the society of his productive social capital road accident impose unacceptable cost.

Issue raised -

The very issue of drunk driving and its social, economic and legal consequences. The issue that the Court addressed in the current case was one of sale of liquor by liquor vendors on National and State Highways all over the country.

Arguments Submitted -

 A few States argued that the ruling would result in revenue loss. According to estimates by the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India (FHRAI), the ban will lead to a loss of ₹2 lakhs crore to the exchequer and ₹20,000 crore to the industry. It has estimated that nearly 1 lakh establishments will face the threat of closure.

Supreme Court Judgement[1] -

  1. In its December 2016 Judgement, the Supreme Court mandated the States and UTs to shut down all liquor vends like Bars, restaurants, shops etc. which are situated within 500 meters of the outer edge of National/ State Highways and the ban extended to highways passing through city/ town. Along with it the states were barred from granting the fresh licenses.
  2. The ban order was based on a Supreme Court judgment on the petition in the State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Balu case (15 December 2016) and the Supreme Court had pointed out that the sale and consumption of alcohol was not a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.
  3. The court exempted municipal areas from the prohibition on its another July 11, 2017 judgement and mentioned that ban mainly targeted busy national and State highways inter-connecting cities, towns and villages along.
  4. The states have time till the expiry of their excise year for the termination of the existing licenses latest by 30th September, 2017
  5. In the case of areas comprised in local bodies with a population of 20,000 people or less, the distance of 500 metres shall stand reduced to 220 metres.
  6. All States and Union territories are mandated to strictly enforce the above directions. The Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Police shall within one month chalk out a plan for enforcement in consultation with the state revenue and home departments.

Opinion -

The judgement given by the supreme court is justified because the number of case of road accident is increased because the people are drunk driving in the national and state highways which cause more accident so the 500 metres liquor vend are closed from the state highway and national highway so this decrease the number of road accident in the highway.

I was agreed by the decision of Supreme Court.


0 comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked