Supreme Court Strikes Down Maharashtra Rules Mandating Additives In Methanol, Issues Directions To Prevent Hooch Tragedies

The Supreme Court on Friday (September 18) has struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which required bitterant and colourant to be added to methanol before it could be sold to non-drug manufacturers.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the writ petitions filed by the methanol-based product manufacturers against the mandatory inclusion of additives in methanol which had affected the quality and usability of their products.

Rules 18A and 18B were introduced in 2011 after a 1991 Mumbai Hooch tragedy which claimed 93 lives due to the consumption of toxic spurious liquor laced with high levels of methanol.

Under Rule 18A, sellers of methanol were required to verify the purchaser's licence and, except where methanol was being purchased for manufacture of drugs, mix one gram of methylene carmine and four grams of denatonium saccharide with every 100 litres of methanol before sale.

Rule 18B provided for confiscation of methanol found in possession without a valid Form A licence.

The petitioners, who manufacture products such as formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, resins and other industrial products using methanol, argued that the mandatory additives affected the quality and usability of their products.

Agreeing with the petitioners' contention, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala rejected the State government's argument that the mandatory inclusion of additives in methanol have a rational nexus and objective sought to be achieved as it was done to prevent hooch tragedies which resulted in deaths of hundreds of people after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol.

The Court agreed that preventing deaths caused by methanol-adulterated liquor was a legitimate objective of the State. However, it held that the measures adopted by Maharashtra were not proportionate to that objective.

The Court observed that the mandatory addition of bitterant and colourant primarily helped in identifying methanol but did not effectively prevent its diversion or misuse for manufacturing illicit liquor.

“The respondent State failed to indicate that this practice of putting such additives would discourage or rather dissuade continuous usage of methanol or affect its chemical composition so that it cannot be used in making of spurious liquor. Further, the respondent State has also failed to indicate on how mixing of the additives would definitively prevent deaths. One another question that is left unanswered is how the respondent plans to prevent manufacturing of spurious liquor by the use of other adulterants. The respondent overlooked that identification is only a possibility. What was expected from the respondent was to introduce stringent measures addressing diversion and pilferage, manner of disposal and return of unused methanol, etc.”, the Court said.

Applying the proportionality test, the Court held that the restrictions failed to establish a sufficient connection between the means adopted and the objective sought to be achieved.

“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…the impugned rules cannot be said to be reasonable or rather a rational application of mind in exercising the law-making power. The impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14.”, the Court held.

Rule 18B also unconstitutional

The Court also invalidated Rule 18B, which provided for confiscation of methanol found in possession without a Form A licence.

It noted that the provision became unworkable where a person was lawfully in possession of methanol under a Form B permit. The requirement of a Form A licence in such circumstances rendered the Form B permit redundant.

Applying the proportionality framework laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court held that although the prevention of loss of life from methanol-adulterated liquor constituted a legitimate aim, the impugned restrictions were neither suitable nor necessary to achieve that objective.

The State had failed to demonstrate that there were no equally effective and less restrictive alternatives. The Court observed that safeguards already contained in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, if implemented properly, could better address pilferage and diversion.

The Bench also weighed the continuing burden on industries, including reduced yield, damage to catalysts and equipment, increased power consumption, environmental and quality concerns, against the benefit claimed by the State, which the Court described as only a possibility.

Despite liquor ban in Gujarat, hooch tragedies claimed several lives

“History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews. Take the case of the State of Gujarat. The State of Gujarat has a strict prohibition policy. It is a dry State. The State of Gujarat has witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since the State's formation and independence, claiming the lives of over 600 people. Despite, the State of Gujarat maintaining a strict prohibition policy since its creation in 1960, hooch tragedies, (laththa laced with methanol) has rapidly led to severe public health crises.”, the Court said.

Suggestions to prevent hooch tragedies

While striking down the rules, the Court also issued several suggestions to the States and Union Territories to prevent hooch tragedies. These included stricter monitoring of methanol transportation, tamper-evident sealing of containers, periodic scrutiny of licences, maintenance of consumption and stock records, and action against persons violating licensing conditions.

The Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts and the Chief Secretaries of all States.

As regards cooperation and working of various Departments

I. There is a need to break the chain of supply and demand of liquor by strict implementation of the State Prohibition Law, if any. This will require a multipronged approach by the State Government, and will also involve participation of multiple Departments of the State such as Prohibition Department, Excise Department, Police Department, Transport Department, Industries Department, Health Department, Social Justice and Empowerment Department along with Non-Government Organizations.

II. As liquor is manufactured in the State and also brought from outside, implementation steps should involve strict monitoring at the State borders. In this regard, the State Transport Department being vigilant at the borders would help control illegal transport of liquor in the State. There shall be stationing of checking squad to check private vehicles as well. At the same time, it would be crucial to find out the mode by which huge quantities of liquor enter the city. Implementation of peripheral laws concerning procurement, manufacture, transportation of sale and consumption of liquor within the State would also prove critical in preventing hooch tragedies from occurring.

III. The State Police in coordination with the Prohibition Department and Excise Department, respectively, can identify and bring to book local breweries which are generally located in semi-industrial areas, congested areas in the urban parts of the State. Many municipal school premises, which are open lands, are often used as storage grounds for illegal liquor. In such circumstances, the Education Department shall keep a check on school premises, and report to jurisdictional police in case of such storage.

IV. Any chemical solvent used in the manufacture of the spurious liquor is generally illegally procured from industrial units. Therefore, monitoring of industrial units by the Department of Industries would be useful to find out which industrial units are manufacturing such chemical solvents and selling them illegally to liquor makers.

As regards the existing Rules in States/Union Territories

V. The existing rules in the State, if any, which regulate methanol should be amended to include that conveying vehicles used in transport of liquor shall not be released on bond or surety in case of breach of any rule, till orders of court.

VI. The State Rules governing the grant of licence and permit require a comprehensive re-look, so as to ensure that a licence or permit is not granted as a matter of course but only after due verification of the antecedents, credentials, and genuine requirement of the applicant. Further, the rules should provide for periodic and regular scrutiny of licences and permits already granted, including verification of continued eligibility, actual usage, and compliance with the conditions of grant, so that the grant of a licence or permit does not remain a one-time exercise but is subject to ongoing accountability.

VII. The State Rules should mandate periodic returns of unused or excess methanol by industrial consumers to the seller, or a designated authority, within a specified time frame, so as to prevent stockpiling beyond what is reasonably required for the consumer's manufacturing process. This will reduce the risk of pilferage or diversion of surplus stock.

VIII. Every licensee and permit-holder dealing in or consuming methanol should be required to maintain a record of consumption and closing stock, reconciled at periodic intervals, so that any unaccounted or unexplained shortfall between opening stock, consumption, and closing stock is flagged and investigated at the earliest.

IX. Any person who is found to have defaulted or breached the conditions of the licence or permit, or the Rules made thereunder, should be liable to have such licence or permit suspended or cancelled, as the case may be, and should further be debarred from being granted any fresh licence or permit.

X. Transport of methanol should be undertaken in dedicated tankers or containers earmarked exclusively for that purpose, so as to eliminate the possibility of pilferage or substitution that arises when methanol is transported in general-purpose, or shared vehicles alongside other goods. Additionally, transportation and storage should be under strict supervision of excise authorities, regulatory measures being prescribed by rules and the excise officers being deputed to supervise transportation and the storage centers/facilities, their services being reimbursed by the entity who stocks and transports methanol.

XI. Containers and tankers used for transport and storage of methanol should be sealed in a tamper-evident manner at the point of dispatch, such that they cannot be opened, and no residual quantity can be siphoned, or left unaccounted for at the bottom of the container, except by the authorized personnel of the consuming industry at the point of receipt, with the seal number and condition recorded both at dispatch and at receipt.

As regards health and awareness

XII. The State Health and Family Welfare Department should have a comprehensive policy and a specialized cell to handle liquor tragedies. When there are large scale casualties, public hospitals are in complete chaos in the face of the sudden emergency. Experiences of the past show that these hospitals are hardly equipped with the necessary specialized medicines or equipment required to handle such emergencies. A comprehensive disaster management system and policy should be in place for handling such emergencies.

XIII. The State Government should increase the number of deaddiction centers and fully operationalize already y existing centers. The deaddiction centers should be given the additional responsibility of reaching out to liquor affected families so that the prohibition laws, if any, can be implemented well and gradually there can be some positive outcome.

XIV. The consumption of liquor and its consequences often lead to disruption of families. Therefore, there should be family counseling centers in each local area, especially for such families who are suffering in silence the travails of liquor consumption.

XV. The general public's cooperation in informing the law enforcing agencies is very important as far as implementation of laws regulating alcohol and prohibition law, respectively, is concerned. An awareness campaign should be conducted by the State Governments and NGOs regarding the prohibition law and its implementation.

Cause Title: M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohan Jayakar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Wable, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.