Supreme Court Cites Gujarat Prohibition Failures While Striking Down Maharashtra's Methanol Denaturing Rules as Unconstitutional

Read Judgment 

Supreme Court Cites Gujarat Prohibition Failures While Striking Down Maharashtra's Methanol Denaturing Rules as Unconstitutional

Case: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Union of India & Anr. - Challenge to Rules 18A and 18B of Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.

Background:

The Rules were introduced after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy (93 deaths) on recommendation of the P.R. Parthasarthy Committee. They restricted purchase/possession of methanol and mandated adding colourant and bitterant before sale to non-drug manufacturers.

Supreme Court Verdict: 

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran struck down Rules 18A and 18B as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Gujarat Observation:

While examining measures to prevent methanol deaths, the Court noted that despite strict prohibition since 1960, Gujarat has witnessed at least 10 major hooch tragedies claiming over 600 lives since Independence. It observed that history shows "complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews."

Other Recent Incidents Cited:

The Court referred to recent hooch deaths in Bhavnagar, Gujarat (13 deaths) and Sagar, MP (15 deaths) as a reminder for authorities to act.

Reasoning for Striking Down Rules: 

The Court held that adding colourant/bitterant at the lawful point of sale does not address the real causes identified by the Parthasarthy Committee - diversion through illegal/unlicensed channels, pilferage, corruption, and use of methanol as a cheaper substitute for ethyl alcohol. Illicit operators may not pass through the regulated channel at all.

Court's Position: 

The Court affirmed that preventing deaths from methanol-adulterated liquor is a legitimate public-health objective. It also listed problems associated with prohibition including loss of revenue, enforcement costs, corruption, and illegal distilling.

Suggested Alternative Measures:

 Instead of denaturing, the Court suggested stronger enforcement of existing rules: verification and periodic scrutiny of licences, monitoring actual usage, return of unused methanol, stock reconciliation, cancellation of licences on violation, dedicated tankers, strict supervision of transport/storage, and tamper-evident sealing.