Failed Test Of Proportionality: Supreme Court Strikes Down Maharashtra’s Methanol Denaturation Rules
The Court ruled that adding colourants and bitterants to industrial methanol imposes excessive burdens on non-drug manufacturers while failing to stop the illicit liquor trade.
The Supreme Court has struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, holding them violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The Court observed that requiring the addition of denaturants and restricting purchase via Form A licenses severely affected downstream industries without preventing illicit liquor manufacturing.
The Court emphasized that cosmetic identification measures fail the test of proportionality and address surface-level symptoms rather than the core issues of pilferage and illegal diversion.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held, "The pressing question is, considering that the State was conscious of the causes behind such tragedies and committed towards resolving it, what other measures apart from the amendment i.e., investigation, search, rigorous examination of records, probe into complaints of pilferage and sale of spurious liquor, did the State take to fight the menace of spurious liquor in these years. This question assumes greater importance in light of the fact that the stay on the operation of the impugned rules has been in operation for about 14 years now...In such a view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned rules fail to pass the test of proportionality, and result in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the non-drugmanufacturers."
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Anand Dilip Landge appeared for the Respondent-State
Writ Petitions were filed seeking a declaration that the notification issued by the Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra, be declared ultra vires the Poisons Act, 1919 (“the Poisons Act”), as well as the Constitution, to the extent of the insertion of Sections 18A and 18B, respectively (“the impugned rules”), in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 (“the Maharashtra Poisons Rules”).
Brief Facts of the Case
An appeal also arose from the judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition, holding that Rule 18A(2) of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules does not have an extra-territorial operation (“the impugned judgment”).
The Petitioners were aggrieved by the operation of the impugned rules, which restrict purchase of methanol, and mandate the addition of bitterant and colourant to methanol before sale to a non-drug manufacturer.
Further, by operation of Rule 18B, any possession of methanol without a licence in Form A is liable to confiscation. The practical hardship for the petitioners lay in the fact that after the addition of the denaturant, their final products are not acceptable to other industries.
As per the records, in 1991, around 250 persons consumed spurious liquor purchased from one Chhaya Bar situated in Andheri, Mumbai Suburban. The persons who had consumed liquor had no idea that what was consumed by them was methanol, which is no less than poison. As a result, around 93 persons lost their lives.
The State then appointed a Committee to look into the causes of this tragedy. The Committee tendered its report to the State Government with several suggestions; one of them was translated into action by the 2011 notification.
Being aggrieved by the impugned rules, two writs were filed in the High Court, and the High Court had dismissed the pleas and upheld the validity of the impugned Rules.
Submissions/Contentions of the Parties
The Petitioners submitted that as methanol is one of the key ingredients in products like formaldehyde, disinfectants, paraformaldehyde, decorative laminate, paint, and resin manufacture, the mandatory addition of denaturant would make it unsuitable for industrial use.
It was further submitted that the impugned notification, being disproportionate and arbitrary, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, it was argued that by operation of the impugned rules, even the producers of methanol would not be in a position to sell methanol in the State of Maharashtra and thus would be forced to export it to other states, or stop production altogether.
The State submitted that the issue at hand should be addressed, posing the question of whether a piece of legislation enacted to prevent colourless and odourless methanol from being misused, or mistaken for consumable alcohol, is liable to be struck down merely because a commercial user considers some other regulatory method more preferable.
It was also argued that as methanol can be indistinguishably mixed with liquor and can cause grave loss of life, the impugned notification has a direct nexus with the prevention of this misuse by identification of methanol. The prescribed colourant assists visual identification, and the bitterant makes accidental or intentional consumption difficult. The impugned rules are lawful as it merely regulates sale and do not prohibit manufacture or import of methanol.
Observations/Findings of the Court
Regarding the first issue of whether Rules 18A and 18B of the Poisons Rules are arbitrary, disproportionate, and unreasonable, the Court noted that it is a well-settled law that the validity of a subordinate piece of legislation may be challenged.
It was added that subordinate legislation can be challenged on the same grounds available against a plenary legislation.
Regarding Rule 18A(1), it was observed that it failed on two counts: 1. The restriction is disproportionate or rather wider than what the object justifies. It proceeds on the erroneous understanding that by verifying the licence in Form A, the seller would be able to ascertain the use of the methanol.
"Secondly, what is discernable from the aforesaid is that the restriction fails to strike a balance as, it shifts the burden onto a class of persons while also leaving the public interest unserved. The State action is excessive. We say so because less drastic measures like cancellation or debarment of licensees found in breach of rules, the imposition of more stringent conditions at the stage of grant of renewal of licence, a requirement for the return of unsold or excess methanol to the licensee or a designated authority after a specified period alongwith calling for explanation, coupled with penal consequence in cases of non-maintenance or discrepancy in the registers, etc., are all left unaddressed", the Court added.
Thus, it was held that the sub-rule failed to constitute a reasonable restriction in public interest within the meaning of Article 19(6), and therefore violates Article 19(1)(g).
For sub-rule (2) of Rule 18A, the Court held that it also failed the test of being reasonable and having a proximate nexus to the object for two reasons:
1. The Committee Report revealed manifold causes for liquor tragedies apart from methanol being sold illegally by the licensees. A large chunk of persons supplying spurious liquor in the market operate beyond the framework of the impugned rules.
2. The addition of bitterant and colourant additives to methanol was a requirement that was identified as providing only superficial visual identification and severely restricting the marketability of downstream industrial products and imposing a significant financial burden on manufacturers. Detection of spiked drinkable alcohol depends on a consumer noticing the change, but it does not stop the illicit alcohol from being produced in the first place.
The Court likened this cosmetic identification approach to "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," noting that it merely addresses surface-level symptoms rather than tackling the core issues of diversion and pilferage.
The Court held, "What is discernable from the above is that in practicality, the impugned rules prescribe a regulatory framework that does not prevent the misuse of methanol in liquor which takes place in the unregulated field. The sub-rule even in the best case of full compliance cannot prevent the misuse it aims to prevent. Thus, it cannot be said to bear a reasonable and proximate nexus with the object it seeks to achieve. It addresses a mischief it does not in fact remedy while imposing a continuous burden on the industries."
After perusing the Chhaya Bar incident, the Court opined that the impugned rules failed to pass the test of proportionality and resulted in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the non-drug manufacturers.
The Court passed the guidelines reagrding important aspects and steps to prevent hooch tragedies and for effective implementation of the policies.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the impugned rules were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Hence, the petitions were allowed, and the appeal was disposed of.
Cause Title: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 1009]
Appearances:
Petitioners/Appellant: Senior Advocate Balbir Singh, Advocate on Record Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advocate Mohan Jayakar, Advocate Abhay Dhadiwal, Advocate Nikhil Wable, Advocate Nishant Sharma, Advocate Ankur Savadikar, Advocate Kartik Sharma
Respondents: Advocate Anand Dilip Landge and AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande