Bombay High Court Seeks FSSAI's Response To Pleas Challenging Ban On Old Monk & McDowell's Rum; No Interim Relief

The Bombay High Court on Monday (August 10) granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time till August 24 to respond to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, challenging orders prohibiting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of the two products.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad passed the order after Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the FSSAI, sought time to file a response to the petitions.

The petitions have been filed by United Spirits Limited, manufacturer of McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, and Mohan Meakin Limited, manufacturer of Old Monk.

The FSSAI urged the Court not to grant any relief to the companies until it files its response. Singh, however, submitted that the manufacturers could continue selling their existing stocks, subject to compliance with the 'conditional prohibition' orders, which require the products to be relabelled as "Rum Flavoured Spirit" before being sold.

Appearing for United Spirits, Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf argued that such relabelling could not be undertaken overnight as it would require removal of existing labels and approval of fresh labels from the State Excise Department. He emphasised that people have been consuming its liquor for nearly five decades now and that there has been no complain about its quality or otherwise. He therefore, urged the bench to 'balance equities' in the instant matter. 

Weighing in, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai representing Mohan Meakin, too highlighted that there has been no complaint from any quarters with regard to the quality of Old Monk or any complaint that someone has fallen ill or otherwise after consuming the said liquor. He highlighted that the company has been loosing crores of rupees each day due to the prohibition orders passed by the FSSAI. 

The judges, however, granted time to ASG Singh to file his response to the petitions and adjourned the hearing till August 24. 

The petition of McDowell No 1 has challenged a June 29, 'Prohibition Order' and a July 27 'Conditional Prohibition Order' issued by the Designated Officer, FSSAI, Western Regional Office prohibiting the manufacturing and sale of their product which is manufactured at their licensed unit in Baramati, Pune.

By the Conditional Prohibition Order the FSSAI has permitted the petitioner to clear its identified existing stocks subject to relabelling conditions, however the prohibition continues against sale of fresh stocks of their product.

Notably, the FSSAI had passed the impugned orders after inspecting the petitioner's unit in Baramati and allegedly found misleading labelling, substandard composition, and the unauthorised use of artificial flavouring agents.

"The controversy arises from certain observations recorded by the Food Analyst relating to the Product's label. Significantly, the Food Analyst has not recorded any finding that the Product is unsafe for human consumption, fails to conform to the prescribed compositional standards for rum, or poses any risk to public health. Even otherwise, the Product conforms to the applicable requirements prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018, and no contravention of the prescribed compositional standards has been recorded against the Product. Thus, even the underlying basis of the Impugned Orders does not disclose any non-compliance with the applicable product standard warranting prohibition," the petition reads.

The Petitioner has argued if Section 36(3 )(b) of the FSS Act which merely enumerates the functions o f a Designated Officer, can be treated as an independent source of power to prohibit manufacture and sale of a food product. "We contend that the section does not confer such powers. The FSS Act consciously creates two specific statutory mechanisms for issuance of prohibition orders i.e., under Section 33 by the competent Court and under Section 34 by the Commissioner of Food Safety in cases involving a health-risk condition. Neither route has been followed," the plea points out.

While permitting identified existing stocks of the very same Product to be sold upon modification of the nomenclature through affixation of stickers, the Conditional Prohibition Order continues to prohibit manufacture and sale of fresh stocks, without identifying any independent statutory provision authorising such continuing restraint, the petitioner's argued.

The matter is likely to be heard on August 24.

Case Title: M/s United Spirits Limited vs Union of India (Writ Petition 10196 of 2026)