Supreme Court Strikes Maharashtra Methanol Rules 18A, 18B: Infringes Rights

• On September 18, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules.
• These rules mandated adding a colourant and bitterant to methanol and required Form A licenses for its sale to non-drug manufacturers.
• The Court found the rules violated Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, deeming them unreasonable and disproportionate.
• The ruling stemmed from writ petitions filed by M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd and others, challenging regulations enacted after a 1991 hooch tragedy.
• The Supreme Court suggested that stricter regulatory measures for methanol transportation and storage under excise laws are needed, rather than prohibition or adulteration.

History, the Court noted, bears eloquent testimony to the fact that a complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews.

In a significant ruling delivered on September 18, 2026, the Supreme Court of India struck down specific provisions within the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, which mandated the addition of a colourant and bitterant to methanol before its sale to non-drug manufacturers. This decision, handed down by a Bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, found that these restrictions infringed upon fundamental constitutional rights, specifically Article 14, which guarantees equality, and Article 19(1)(g), protecting the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation.

The challenge to these amended rules originated from writ petitions filed by M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd and other entities. The regulations in question, Rules 18A and 18B, were introduced via a 2011 notification, following a devastating hooch tragedy in 1991 at Mumbai's Chhaya Bar, which resulted in 93 fatalities. Rule 18A required sellers to verify the intended use of methanol by checking if purchasers possessed a valid Form A licence, while Rule 18B permitted the confiscation of methanol found without such a licence.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the inherently hazardous and toxic nature of methanol, agreeing that its sale and possession necessitate robust and effective regulation to prevent incidents like hooch tragedies. However, the Court determined that the particular measures implemented by the Maharashtra government failed to satisfy the constitutional tests of reasonableness and proportionality. The Bench highlighted that the state was unable to demonstrate a reasonable and proximate connection between the impugned rules and their stated objective of preventing methanol-related hooch tragedies.

This ruling underscores a critical legal principle: while states have the authority to regulate dangerous substances, such regulations must not unduly restrict fundamental rights without a clear, justifiable, and proportionate link to the public good they aim to protect. The Court's analysis focused on whether the specific requirements for methanol colourant and bitterant, alongside the Form A licence stipulations, were genuinely effective and constitutionally sound mechanisms for achieving the desired safety outcomes.

Beyond the immediate invalidation of the Maharashtra methanol rules, the Supreme Court offered broader observations on the efficacy of prohibition and stringent controls in preventing hooch tragedies. The Court noted that historical experience suggests 'forced temperance' is not a viable solution for alcoholism, often driving the liquor trade underground and leading to an increase in unregulated and lethal brews. Quoting Mark Twain, the Bench highlighted that prohibition tends to push drunkenness into clandestine spaces without curing or diminishing it.

The Court identified five detrimental consequences associated with prohibition, including the loss of tax revenue, significant expenditure on implementation, increased corruption within police and excise departments, the proliferation of illegal distilling, and a resultant drug menace. Instead of adulterating methanol with a bitterant and colourant, which the Court believed would not curb the craving for liquor, it advocated for stricter regulatory measures concerning the transportation and storage of methanol under existing excise laws. The Court cautioned that the state's current approach risked 'missing the woods for the trees' and could jeopardize legitimate industries.

The Supreme Court urged states and Union Territories to adopt a coordinated, multi-departmental strategy to combat the illegal manufacture, transportation, and sale of spurious liquor. This comprehensive approach is intended to address the root causes of hooch tragedies more effectively than the invalidated Maharashtra methanol rules.

Referencing the Parthasarthy Committee, which was formed after the 1991 Chhaya Bar tragedy, the Court recalled key factors contributing to liquor-related deaths, such as the illegal diversion of methanol, pilferage, confusion between methyl and ethyl alcohol, and corruption in enforcement. The ruling emphasizes that genuine prevention lies in robust oversight of the supply chain and enforcement, rather than measures that disproportionately impact legitimate businesses or fail to address the underlying societal issues.

Compliance officers and businesses dealing with methanol in Maharashtra must note that specific requirements under Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, concerning colourants/bitterants and Form A licenses, have been struck down as unconstitutional. This ruling impacts their regulatory compliance obligations and may necessitate a review of existing procedures for methanol sale and handling.

Source: Original reporting via The Economic Times