The Rajasthan High Court has raised serious constitutional concerns over the State’s allotment of a liquor shop license in a densely populated market, considering it a prima facie violation of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution.

A bench led by Justice Sameer Jain has directed the government to explain its decision-making and produce the temperance policy that governs such allotments.

Facts:

The case involves a license-holder whose shop had been allotted in Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur, under the 2021-22 excise excise policy. On August 13, 2025, the State issued a notice asking her to transfer the shop to an “unobjectionable” location, justified as a response to "public resentment." The license-holder challenged this order before the High Court.

Justice Jain observed that allowing a liquor outlet in areas surrounded by temples, schools and other socially sensitive structures appeared to violate the State’s constitutional duty.

In particular, Article 47 obligates the State to discourage consumption of intoxicants harmful to health and not enable their distribution.

Recognizing the gravity of the issue, the Court summoned both the Excise Commissioner and the Principal Secretary via video conference, instructing them to produce the Temperance Policy and justify such planning.

The order stated:

“On the next date of hearing, Commissioner of Excise Department as well as Principal Secretary are directed to appear via V.C., and furnish the Temperance Policy vis-a-vis Article 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India as well as tender a reasonable justification qua allotments of liquor shops in public area wherein temples, schools and sacred things are located. Further, State to provide an explanation qua allotments of the shops in densely populated market which prima facie appears to be against the provisions of Article 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India”

The bench explicitly noted that while the license-holder had no vested right to continue selling liquor, the State itself had initially allowed the location under its policy and must, therefore, account for the shift.

Corram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain

Case Name: Sadhana Shivhare v State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s): Mr. S.N. Kumawat Mr. Naval Kishore Mali

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Vardhan Katara for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG