2026 INSC 1009

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 893 OF 2019

M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR. …PETITIONER S

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT S

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1059 OF 2019

THE CHEMICAL AND ALKALI

MECHANDS ASSOCIATION & ANR. …PETITIONER S

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …RESPONDENT S

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13008 OF 2026

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16236 OF 2019 )

INDIAN CHEMICAL COUNCIL …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 35

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the

following parts:-

INDEX

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES ................................... 6

i. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 893 of 2019 &

appellant in SLP(C) No. 16236 of 2019 ..................................................... 6

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State ................................... 8

III. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION ........................................................ 10

IV. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 10

A. Whether Rules 18A and 18B, respectively, of the Maharashtra Poisons

Rules could be said to be arbitrary, disproportionate, and unreasonable?

.............................................................................................................. 13

B. Few meaningful suggestions .............................................................. 27

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 35

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 16236 of 2019.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the measures adopted by

the Administration in the wake of a hooch tragedy to make

methanol, both unpalatable and unrecognizable. Mark Twain

has famously said, “Evidence has been brought forward which

proves that prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and

into dark places, and does not cure it or even diminish it”.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 35

3. Forced temperance, it is learned from experience, is no solution

for alcoholism. Neither the taste or colour matters, for the one

craving and in making such a measure, the fallout is the death

knell of an industry. To adulterate methanol with a bitterant and

colourant would not quell the craving and to achieve

unavailability, there should be stricter regulatory measures for

transportation and storage as put forth in the excise laws. The

present exercise puts to jeopardy an industry itself and would

result in ‘missing the woods for the trees’.

4. Since the issues raised in the two captioned writ petitions and

the appeal, respectively, are the same, those were taken up for

hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common

judgment and order.

I. BACKGROUND

5. By the aforecaptioned writ petitions, the petitioners seek a

declaration that Notification No. DRG 2006/1006/C.R.

659/06/DRUGS-2 dated 21.01.2011 (“2011 notification”)

issued by the Medical Education and Drugs Department,

Government of Maharashtra be declared ultra vires the Poisons

Act, 1919 (for short, “the Poisons Act”), as well as the

Constitution to the extent of insertion of Sections 18A and 18B,

respectively (“the impugned rules ”), in the Maharashtra

Poisons Rules, 1972 (for short, “the Maharashtra Poisons

Rules”).

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 35

6. The aforecaptioned appeal arises from the judgment and order

passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 03.05.2019 in W.P.

No. 2535 of 2012 by which the High Court dismissed the writ

petition holding that the Rule 18A(2) of the Maharashtra Poisons

Rules does not have an extra-territorial operation (“the

impugned judgment”).

7. The issue involved in the present litigation is plain and simple.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the operation of impugned rules

18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, respectively,

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 lies in the

fact that after addition of the denaturant, their final products

are not acceptable by other industries.

8. It appears from the materials on record that sometime in the

year 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.

9. In the wake of this incident referred to above, it appears that the

State Government thought fit to appoint a Committee under the

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 35

Chairmanship of P.R. Parthasarthy, Addl. Director General of

Police to look into the causes for the liquor tragedy and the

measures to be taken. The Committee tendered its report to the

State Government with several suggestions, one of them was

translated into action by the 2011 notification.

10. By the 2011 notification, the Maharashtra Poisons Rules were

amended and alongwith the following impugned rules, methanol

was inserted in the Schedule appended to the said rules to be

recognized as a ‘poison’. The impugned rules read thus:-

“18A. Ascertaining use of Methanol (Methyl

Alcohol) at the time of sale:

(1) A licensee who desires to sell Methanol (Methyl

Alcohol) to anyone shall first ascertain the use of

that substance for which the purchase is being

made. This shall be done by verifying the licence

issued to the purchaser by the Licensing Authority

in Form A.

(2) Except when the Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) is

being purchased for the manufacture of drugs as

certified by the local Food and Drugs

Administration, a licensee shall not sell Methanol

(Methyl Alcohol) to any person, unless the same is,

before the sale thereof, mixed with one gram of

methylene carmine and four grams of denatonium

Saccharide to every one hundred liters of Methanol

(Methyl Alcohol).

18B. Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) to be confiscated if

found without valid licence:

Any Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) found to be in

possession without a valid licence issued in Form

A shall be confiscated.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 35

18C. Persons, Firms or Companies already in

business of Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) to obtain

licence within ninety days.

Persons, firms or companies who are already

in the business of Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) in

whatever capacity and are required to obtain a

licence under these rules, shall obtain such a

licence within a period of ninety days from the date

of publication of the Maharashtra Poisons

(Amendment) Rules, 2011, in the Official Gazette.”

11. Being aggrieved by the impugned rules, two writ petitions

bearing nos. 2153 of 2012 and 2535 of 2012, respectively, were

filed in the High Court.

12. The High Court vide its order dated 24.02.2012 granted interim

relief permitting the purchase of methanol by non-drug

manufacturers or actual user of dyes, drugs and chemicals.

However, such persons were required to submit their purchase

orders to the Food and Drug Administration.

13. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid petitions vide the

impugned judgment and upheld the validity of the impugned

rules. However, the High Court upon request made by the

original appellant extended the aforesaid relief to enable the

appellant to question the legality and validity of the impugned

judgment before the Supreme Court.

14. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants are here

before this Court with the present appeal.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 35

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. No. 893

of 2019 & appellant in SLP(C) No. 16236 of 2019 ,

respectively

15. Mr. Balbir Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners would submit that as methanol is one of the key

ingredients in products like formaldehyde, disinfectants,

paraformaldehyde, decorative laminate, paint, resin

manufacture, the mandatory addition of denaturant would

make it unsuitable for industrial use.

i. Mr. Singh further submitted that the impugned notification

being disproportionate and arbitrary is violative of Article 14

of the Constitution. In the same breath, he submitted that

the restriction imposed by the impugned rules, said to be in

the interest of general public are not reasonable, and are

violative of the fundamental right to carry on occupation,

trade or business.

ii. Mr. Singh highlighted that as methanol is governed by

various other legislation, the introduction of the impugned

rules was not at all necessary. He illustrated that methanol

falls within Class ‘A’ hazardous product under the Petroleum

Rules, which means all storage facilities and transportation

tankers have to be approved and licenced by the Chief

Controller of Explosives. Any tanker leaving a port is required

to be mandatorily surveyed, samples are drawn and tankers

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 35

are sealed. This acts as a necessary safeguard against

pilferage.

iii. He submitted that by operation of the impugned rules even

the producers of methanol would not be in a position to sell

methanol in State of Maharashtra and thus, would be forced

to export it to other states, or stop production altogether.

iv. As regards Rule 18A, Mr. Singh emphasized that the rules

require that a licensee who desires to sell methanol to anyone

is mandatorily required to ascertain the use of the substance

for which the purchase is being made. Such ascertainment is

required to be done by verifying the licence issued to the

purchaser in Form A. However, the anomaly lies in the fact

that the proforma of Form A does not prescribe the ultimate

use of the licensee nor specifies what the business of the

licensee is. As a result, the verification as mandated by Rule

18A(1) is almost impossible to achieve.

v. In addition to the aforesaid, something very gross was pointed

out by Mr. Singh. The colourant identified and mandated by

the State in Rule 18A(2) contains carcinogenic materials

which promote cancer causing cell formation.

vi. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel

would submit that the impugned notification is an

unreasonable and a disproportionate exercise of power and is

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 35

liable to be struck down for being violative of Articles 14 and

19(1)(g), respectively.

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State

16. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, the learned counsel appearing for the

State of Maharashtra would submit that the issue at hand

should be addressed posing the question, 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.

i. Mr. Landge further submitted 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 colorant assists visual identification and the

bitterant makes accidental or intentional consumption

difficult. The impugned rules are lawful as it merely regulates

sale and does not prohibit manufacture or import of

methanol.

ii. He argued that the power to “regulate sale” permits the State

to prescribe the condition or form in which a poison may be

sold. In this context, he submitted that regulation would

include prescription of conditions that make the substance

identifiable, traceable and less capable of misuse. The

prescribed addition is a condition attached immediately

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 35

before sale and is covered within “regulation of sale”. He

added that under Sections 2 and 8 of the Poisons Act,

respectively, the State possesses authority to prescribe an

identification safeguard for methanol at sale.

iii. In the aforesaid context, he placed reliance on the decision of

this Court in Goodwill Paint & Chemical Industry v.

Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 16 , to

submit that this Court has recognized that inherently

dangerous consequences associated with trade in poisons

justify statutory restrictions.

iv. Mr. Landge contended that the restriction imposed is

proportional and reasonable as it regulates sale of methanol.

The other measures like sealing of tankers, petroleum-safety

licences and hazardous-chemical rules serve different

purposes and do not prevent diversion after transpor t,

unlawful resale, substitution, or use of illicit liquor.

v. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel

prayed that there being no merit in the petitions those be

dismissed and the interim protection operating against the

enforcement of the impugned notification be vacated. In the

alternative, issues regarding specification of the additives,

manner of certification, licensing of a genuine industrial

consumer, may be left to the competent authority for a time-

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 35

bound decision without disturbing the validity or

enforcement of the impugned notification.

III. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

17. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and

having gone through the materials on record, the following

question fall for our consideration:-

a. Whether Rules 18A and 18B, respectively, inserted by the

Maharashtra Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 2011, in the

Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, could be said to be

violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,

respectively?

IV. ANALYSIS

18. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either

side, we must briefly look into the relevant provisions of the

Poisons Act as well as the Maharashtra Poisons Rules.

19. The Poisons Act seeks to regulate the import, possession, and

sale of poisons. Section 2 empowers the State Government to

formulate rules regulating the possession and sale of poisons.

Sub-section (2) empowers the State to formulate rules for

regulating the grant of licences for production, possession and

sale of specified poisons. Section 3 confers power upon the

Central Government to prohibit import of poisons without a

licence. Likewise, Section 4 confers power upon the State

Government to regulate possession of any specified poison

alongwith prescribing appropriate punishment. Section 5

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 35

provides for a deeming fiction that any substance declared as a

poison under the rules or notification would be deemed to be a

poison under the Act. Section 6 further provides the penalty for

unlawful importation for specified poisons. Section 7 confers

power upon the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate,

Commissioner of Police, respectively, to issue warrant for search

of any place. Section 8 confers power on the State Government

to make rules in furtherance of objects and purposes of the Act,

in addition to that contained in Section 2. It is in exercise of the

powers under Sections 2 and 8, respectively, that the

Maharashtra Poisons Rules came to enacted.

20. Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules provides that

possession of any poison for the purposes of its sale or sale of

any poison as the case may be shall be made only under a valid

licence issued in Form A, unless exempted by the rules. Rule 4

prescribes the Form and process for grant or renewal of such

licences. Rule 9 addresses dispensation and sale of poisons.

Rule 9(2) states that every sale of poison shall be made only in

person, or where it is a company through or under the

supervision of an accredited representative. Rule 10 indicates to

whom any poison specified within the rules may be sold. Having

regard to the relevance of the rule, it would be apposite to quote

it. It reads thus:-

“10. Persons to whom poisons may be sold. – (1)

Subject to the provisions of these rules, a licensee

may sell any poison to any person if he –

(a) is a licensee or holds a permit in Form B;

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 35

(b) is personally known to the licensee or is

identified to his satisfaction;

(c) is over the age of 18 years;

(d) is not wandering medicant

(e) appears to be in his senses.

(2) The licensee shall not sell any poison in any

quantity exceeding that specified in the permit.

(3) The licensee shall retain the permit with him on

sale of the poison to the permit-holder.”

21. Rule 11 mandates every licensee to maintain a register for the

purposes of recording sale of poisons by him. The register shall

contain the name of the poison, purpose for which the poison

was required, and the quantity sold. In addition to this, Rule 12

further mandates a licensee to maintain a stock register qua

each poison, recording the daily balance of stock of poisons.

Rule 14 confers power on various authorities to inspect stock of

poisons at the licensee’s premise, and the registers maintaining

record of poison at any time. Rules 15, and 16, respectively,

prescribe the manner in which poisons are to be stored,

packaged and labelled.

22. Rule 15A inserted by the 2011 notification prescribes the

manner in which methanol would be carried in containers in

transit. The impugned rules, more particularly, Rules 18A and

18B, respectively, requires a purchaser to hold a licence in Form

A in order to buy methanol, the mandatory addition of

denaturant in methanol except when being purchased for the

purpose of drug manufacturing, and the confiscation of

methanol in case of absence of licence in Form A, respectively.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 35

A. Whether Rules 18A and 18B, respectively, of the

Maharashtra Poisons Rules could be said to be arbitrary,

disproportionate, and unreasonable?

23. The impugned rules brought into force by the 2011 notification

are in a form of a subordinate legislation. It is now well settled

by a catena of decisions that validity of a subordinate piece of

legislation may be challenged on the following grounds:-

i. There is lack of legislative competence to make the

subordinate legislation;

ii. It is ultra vires the fundamental rights or any other Articles

of the Constitution;

iii. It is ultra vires the parent Act;

iv. It is contrary to the any other statutory provision;

v. The law-making power has been exercised in bad faith;

vi. It is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable;

vii. It does not fulfill the object and purpose of the parent Act,

or exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling

Act.

[See: State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy, (2006)

4 SCC 517; Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union

of India, (2009) 16 SCC 569; Vasu Dev Singh v. Union

of India, (2006) 12 SCC 753.]

24. It is trite law that a subordinate legislation can be challenged on

the same grounds available against a plenary legislation. In

other words, a subordinate legislation should not be an exercise

of power that is unreasonable, lacking an adequate determining

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 35

principle, irrational, excessive or disproportionate. The object

behind the State action, the manner in which it is undertaken,

and its effect on the fundamental rights, all must meet the tests

of Part III of the Constitution.

25. The test of arbitrariness under Article 14 is not merely whether

the object is legitimate, but whether the means adopted bear a

reasonable and proximate nexus to that object, and whether

those means are proportionate to the burden they impose. This

has also been expressed in several decisions as, the validity of a

law which infringes the fundamental rights has to be tested not

with reference to the object of the State action but on the basis

of its effect on the rights.

26. It is not necessary for us to multiply precedents on the

exposition of arbitrariness as the principles are well settled by a

catena of decisions of this Court.

27. At the cost of repetition, we deem it necessary to once again

quote Rule 18A, for a better exposition. The same reads thus:-

“18A. Ascertaining use of Methanol (Methyl

Alcohol) at the time of sale:

(1) A licensee who desires to sell Methanol (Methyl

Alcohol) to anyone shall first ascertain the use of

that substance for which the purchase is being

made. This shall be done by verifying the licence

issued to the purchaser by the Licensing Authority

in Form A.

(2) Except when the Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) is

being purchased for the manufacture of drugs as

certified by the local Food and Drugs

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 35

Administration, a licensee shall not sell Methanol

(Methyl Alcohol) to any person, unless the same is,

before the sale thereof, mixed with one gram of

methylene carmine and four grams of denatonium

Saccharide to every one hundred liters of Methanol

(Methyl Alcohol).”

28. Before we proceed to address the inconsistencies and the nature

of restriction imposed by the rules, it would be apposite to

discuss the licensing framework provided by the Maharashtra

Poisons Rules. Rule 4 of the said rules prescribes that any

person who wishes to sell, or to possess for sale, any poison

must hold a licence in Form A. Such a licence has to be acquired

for all the respective premises where the applicant seeks to stock

poisons. Thus, Form A is granted only to a person who either

sells poisons or possess for the purpose of sale. Further, Rule

10 stipulates to whom poison be sold which includes a person

who is either a licensee or holder of a permit in Form B.

29. In addition to the aforesaid, the impugned Rule 18A(1)

prescribes a condition that a licensee before selling methanol

must ascertain the use of methanol and this shall be done by

verifying whether the purchaser holds a licence in Form A. In

other words, it restricts the purchase of methanol by anyone for

further use, more particularly, manufacturers of downstream

products. It also forestalls a permit holder in Form B from

procuring methanol, even to be used as a raw material. It would

not be inapposite to say that a purchaser who is a manufacturer

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 35

of a product in which methanol is a raw material would not hold

Form A licence.

30. The sub-rule also overlooks that “ascertainment of use” is

already covered under Rule 11 as well as the permit in Form B.

As a corollary to the aforesaid rule, the licensee-seller would also

be precluded from selling methanol to any manufacturer or

industrial consumer. Thus, Rule 18A virtually changes the

purpose of licence in Form A, puts a licensee-seller and a

purchaser on the same pedestal, and renders permit in Form B

nugatory.

31. There is no gainsaying that a law requiring that an act which is

inherently dangerous, noxious or injurious to public health and

safety may be regulated by a permit or licence under the stamp

of an authority. No person can claim such a licence or permit as

a right, and such a restriction regulated by rules would be

reasonable.

32. The question that begs for an answer now is whether the

impugned rules fall within the ambit of the saving clause of

Article 19(6) or is in excess of it and thereby violative of Article

19(1)(g).

33. The impugned rules would stand the test of constitutionality

only if the respondent is successful in establishing that the

restriction imposed is reasonable and in the larger public

interest. In other words, the restriction on the freedom

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 35

guaranteed was necessary, and the intended object could not

have been achieved by imposing a less drastic restriction. [See:

Mohd. Faruk v. State of M.P., (1969) 1 SCC 853]

34. A restriction can be said to be reasonable when it is not

excessive in nature, more particularly, when it does not go

beyond what is required in the public interest, is born out of

care and deliberation of relevant factors, and strikes a balance

between the rights guaranteed and societal interests.

35. When restriction imposed by sub-rule (1) of Rule 18A is tested

on the anvil of the aforesaid principle of law, it fails on two

counts. First, the restriction is disproportionate or rather wider

than what the object justifies. It proceeds on the erroneous

understanding that by verifying licence in Form A the seller

would be able to ascertain the use of the methanol. Further, it

assumes that by verifying the purchaser’s licence, methanol

would not reach persons who may use it for adulteration of

liquor.

36. 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

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 35

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.

37. Thus, the sub-rule fails to constitute a reasonable restriction in

public interest within the meaning of Article 19(6), and therefore

violate Article 19(1)(g).

38. We shall now address ourselves on sub-rule (2) of Rule 18A. This

sub-rule mandates addition of 1g of methylene carmine

(colourant) and 4g of denatonium saccharide (bitterant) to every

100l of methanol before it is sold to any non-drug manufacturer.

39. We are conscious of the fact that some hardship or

inconvenience that may be caused to a section of society cannot

by itself be a ground to strike down a legislation. If a rule

otherwise appears to be fair, just and reasonable, and does not

suffer from the vice of any constitutional guarantee, mere fact

that some hardship, financial burden, or commercial difficulty

is caused is no ground to declare the State action

unconstitutional. However, such actions must be reasonable

and proportionate.

40. In the present case, the aforesaid requirement of addition of

bitterant and colourant in methanol prescribed under Rule

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 35

18A(2) fails the test of being reasonable and having a proximate

nexus to the object on two counts.

41. First, a careful reading of the Parthasarthy Committee Report

would reveal manifold causes for liquor tragedies apart from

methanol being sold illegally by the licensees. The other causes

identified by the Committee were methanol being diverted

through illegal and unlicensed channels, availability of

methanol as a cheaper alternative to ethyl alcohol, corruption in

law enforcement agencies, genuine confusion between ethyl and

methyl alcohol, and pilferage. All such causes reasons may

continue to operate despite the regulatory framework that the

impugned rules seek to put in place. In other words, a large

chunk of persons supplying spurious liquor in the market

operate beyond the framework of the impugned rules.

42. The aforesaid causes, namely, methanol being diverted through

illegal and unlicensed channel, or pilferage do not originate at

the point of lawful sale by a licensee which the impugned rule

seek to regulate, or for reasons, namely, confusion, or misuse of

licensee’s premise, rules already exist in place but are not

implemented well, and for other reasons, namely, corruption, or

methanol being a cheaper alternative, they are outside the ambit

of the Maharashtra Poison Rules.

43. In the context of the present sub-rule, a person who indulges in

diverting methanol through illegal or unlicensed channels, or by

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 35

pilferage, may not pass through the point of sale that the

impugned rule seeks to regulated. The impugned denaturing

requirement leave diversion outside the register unaddressed.

44. The following industries through their respective affidavits have

explained the manner in which they are affected by the operation

of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 18A. It reads thus:-

Industries How are they affected?

Aarti Industries

Ltd. (Spack

Division)

▪ Bitterant will leave traces in final

product.

▪ As their final product (Di Methyl

Sulphate) is colourless, colourant will

lead to colouration in final product.

As a result, dyes industry will not

accept such DMS.

▪ Pharma industry would not accept

such a DMS.

Akyl Chemicals

Ltd.

▪ Final product (methyl amines) has

application in life saving drugs such

as metformin hydrochloride (diabetic

drug), ranitidine (antacid),

erythromycin (antibiotics), etc., any

change in process of manufacture of

these drugs will have adverse effect.

▪ Addition of bitterant and colourant

would damage the catalyst.

Balaji Amines Ltd. Same as above.

Balaji Formalin

Pvt. Ltd.

▪ Final product (paraformaldehyde) is

in the form of white crystals – addition

of colourant would lead to non -

acceptance of the product.

▪ Bhabha Atomic Research Centre

(BARC), India’s atomic research

centre, demands ulta -pure

formaldehyde.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 35

▪ Colourant would leave traces of colour

in formaldehyde which is not

acceptable to paint industry, pharma

and drug industry.

Thermo Fisher

Scientific India Pvt.

Ltd.

▪ Final product (Laboratory and

Industry grade methyl alcohol) is used

by pharma industries , and for

research activities. Addition of

bitterant and colourant would impact

such analysis and manufacture of

drugs.

▪ Purified methanol (99.9%) would not

be supplied to pharma and laboratory

research customers.

45. Secondly, it is apposite to understand that the bitterant and

colourant prescribed under sub-rule (2) are additives. What the

provision achieves is mere identification at the cost of restricting

marketability of the final product and imposing additional

financial burden on the industries. It is one thing to identify

addition of methanol in potable alcohol, however, that too

operates only if and when the consumer notices it. It is another

thing to prevent the manufacture of illicit liquor from methanol

in the first place. This aspect of identification works like

rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to say that the

measure addresses a surface level aspect and does not address

the core issues of diversion and pilferage.

46. 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,

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 35

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.

47. The respondent has also not disputed that the denaturant

cannot be diluted and masked through the addition of any

colouring and flavouring agent. In other words, the mandate of

sub-rule (2) fails to perform if any miscreant makes spurious

liquor from methanol but thereafter masks the color and flavour.

48. 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.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 35

49. There is no doubt that on matters affecting policy and requiring

technical or administrative expertise, the courts would be

reluctant to interfere and leave the matter for the experts to

address. However, a policy that is irrational, or lacks rational

justification, or is violative of any constitutional, statutory or any

other provision of law is liable to be struck down. The courts can

examine whether the Government has formulated the policy

keeping in mind all the facts and i s not marred with

unreasonableness. Afterall, the basic tenet of Article 14 is

fairness in action and non-arbitrariness in essence.

50. We do not discredit the intention behind the introduction of the

impugned rules. There is no doubt that the State was confronted

with a serious public health concern. Although, the intention in

mandating denaturants was identification, yet the intention

solely would not pass the test of manifest arbitrariness.

51. In such circumstances referred to above, 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.

52. We may now address ourselves on the constitutional validity of

Rule 18B. It reads thus:-

“18B. Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) to be confiscated if

found without valid licence:

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 35

Any Methanol (Methyl Alcohol) found to be in

possession without a valid licence issued in Form

A shall be confiscated.”

53. This rule essentially states that no person can possess methanol

without having a licence in Form A. The said rule would be

rendered unworkable and otiose when applied in a case where a

person is lawfully in possession of methanol by way of the Form

B permit. At the same time, imposition of such condition renders

the permit redundant in its complete form and action.

54. We may now view the aforesaid from one another angle of

proportionality analysis prescribed in K.S. Puttaswamy

(Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1,

which seeks answer to the following questions:-

(i) Is the state action in furtherance of a legitimate aim?

(ii) Is the state action suitable for achieving such an aim?

(iii) Is the measure necessary for achieving the aim? and

(iv) Is the measure adequately balanced with the right of the

individual?

55. As regards, legitimacy of the aim, there can be no dispute that

the impugned rules pursue a legitimate aim. We do not say for

a moment that methanol is not a hazardous or toxic substance,

and its sale and possession should not be subject to regulation.

The prevention of loss of life arising from consumption of liquor

adulterated with methanol is an object of utmost importance

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 35

and the power to regulate poisons is governed by Sections 2 and

8, respectively.

56. The second test is whether the state action is suitable for

achieving such an aim. The evaluation under this test would

entail an analysis of whether the impugned restriction can

further the intended objective. As discussed in the foregoing

paragraphs of this judgment that by restricting the purchase of

methanol through licensing framework under Rule 18A(1), and

consequential action of confiscation under Rule 18B would not

even remotely achieve the aim of stopping the addition of

methanol in liquor.

57. As regards adoption of less restrictive measures, the State has

failed in showing that no equally effective and less restrictive

alternative was available. In our considered view, the check-

points or rather the safeguards in the Maharashtra Poison Rules

if implemented in letter and spirit would better address the

problem of pilferage and diversion.

58. Finally, the answer to the last test lies in the question whether

the burden placed on a class of citizens is out of proportion to

the benefit it is likely to produce. On one hand lies the burden

on the industries as noted in paragraph 44 above, namely, loss

of yield, reduced life of catalyst leading to more byproduct

formation impacting environment and quality of formaldehyde,

high power consumption, reduced life of equipment, increased

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 35

susceptibility of health hazards owing to improper evaporation,

etc, while on the other, lies the benefit of identification which

the State hopes would prevent the harm sought to be addressed.

Thus, the burden on the industries is substantial and

continuing but the benefit that the State claims to achieve is

only a possibility.

59. The Chhaya Bar incident which moved the respondent State to

introduce the amendments, occurred in 1991, however, neither

from the materials on record, nor from the submissions on

behalf of the State, we have been able to gauge the actions that

were undertaken by the State between 1991 to 2011. 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.

60. In such a view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion

that 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 -drug

manufacturers.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 35

B. Few meaningful suggestions

“The death of one man is a tragedy,

the death of millions is a statistic”

61. We are tempted to preface this part of our judgment with the

words attributed to a French diplomat, as a satire to express the

horrors of war, more particularly, the moral failure and

indifference of those in power towards mass deaths, or deaths

that are politically convenient to minimize.

62. The recent hooch tragedies at Bhavnagar, Gujarat and Sagar,

Madhya Pradesh, which claimed around 13 and 1 5 lives,

respectively, are again a reminder for the authorities to wake up

and act.

63. 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. In the words of eminent jurist, the legendary Shri

Nani Palkhiwala:

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 35

“Prohibition would be most desirable in every way

but for a single unfortunate fact,-- the only thing is

it is not prohibitive. In order that prohibition might

be prohibitive, prohibition must be on the part of the

governed and not the Government. When the

Government begins to prohibit liquor, it ends in

promoting liquor, because it cannot do otherwise

for all that it’s worth. All the statesmen from

Augustus to Asquith have failed in their attempts

to prohibit. Man cannot defeat man’s nature. The

question is not whether prohibition is good, the

question is not whether prohibition is desirable or

advisable. The question is whether the Government

is justified in trying the experiment of prohibition. It

has been hotly insisted upon that drink is

disastrous, especially when in excess, and

therefore it ought to be prohibited. Now, it is

obvious to any mortal out of Bedlam that if a thing

is an evil when used in excess, the remedy lies in

preventing the excess. If drunkards are a nuisance,

the remedy lies in preventing people from being

drunkards, but NOT in preventing people from

drinking. The Government cannot say that because

some are drunkards nobody shall drink, the

Government might as well say that because some

are gluttons, nobody shall eat.”

(A passage from the article written by Shri Nani

Palkhiwala at the age of 17. It was originally

published in the Gujarati -English weekly

newspaper Jame Jamshed in October 1937. The

piece was compiled and reproduced decades later

in Essays and Reminiscences: A Festschrift in

Honour of Nani A. Palkhiwala)

64. It can be safely said that there are five evils associated with

prohibition – (i) loss of revenue on taxes, (ii) expenditure on

implementation and good money spent (iii) corruption in police

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 35

and excise (iv) illegal distilling and in the present days, and (v)

resultant drug menace.

65. In the present case, the report of the Parthasarthy Committee

lays emphasis on taking care of the deficiencies, the

implementation of the prohibition policy, and also the effective

implementation of the provisions of the law. Therefore, in our

opinion, having regard to the seriousness of the issue it will be

in the larger public interest if the respondent takes into

consideration the report of the Committee at the earliest and

considers the recommendations and implement them effectively

and meaningfully.

66. Before we close this matter, we must address ourselves on the

important aspect as regards what steps could be taken to

prevent hooch tragedies, and what best could be done for

effective implementation of the polic ies. The following

suggestions shall be discussed and looked into by all the

States/Union Territories.

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,

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 35

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.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 35

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.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 35

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.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 35

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.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 35

XIII. The State Government should increase the number of de-

addiction 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.

67. We are of the view that in the matters of the present nature,

although the Court may issue various directions, yet it is the

police machinery that should rise to the occasion and see to it

that the provisions of the Act governing regulation of alcohol are

implemented strictly and effectively.

W.P. No. 893 of 2019 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 35

V. CONCLUSION

68. For all the aforesaid reasons, we have reached the conclusion

that the impugned rules are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution, respectively.

69. In the result, the petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

70. The civil appeal is disposed of in above terms.

71. Registry shall forward one copy each of this judgment to all the

High Courts, and one copy each to all the Chief Secretaries of

the respective States.

…………………………..J.

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

.…………………………..J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN )

New Delhi;

September 18, 2026.