1. Challenge to Maharashtra Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 2011 inserting Rules 18A and 18B requiring denaturing of methanol and licensing restrictions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
M/S Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019
With
The Chemical And Alkali Mechands Association & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1059 of 2019
And
Indian Chemical Council – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13008 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16236 of 2019)
Decided On : 18-09-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Mohan Jayakar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Wable, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Mohan Jayakar, Adv. Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Wable, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Rules mandating the denaturing of chemicals to prevent misuse are unconstitutional if they are disproportionate, lack a rational nexus with the objective, and fail the proportionality test by imposing an excessive burden on industry without effectively achieving the public health goal.
Headnote:(A) Poisons Act, 1919 - Sections 2 and 8; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 19(6) - Rules mandating addition of denaturants to a toxic chemical to prevent misuse in illicit liquor - Validity of subordinate legislation - Whether such rules are arbitrary, disproportionate, and unreasonable.
(B) Validity of subordinate legislation - Can be challenged on grounds of lack of legislative competence, being ultra vires fundamental rights or the parent Act, being contrary to other statutory provisions, being exercised in bad faith, or being manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable (Paras 23-24).
(C) Reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) - A restriction is reasonable when it is not excessive, is born out of deliberation of relevant factors, strikes a balance between guaranteed rights and societal interests, and where the object could not have been achieved by imposing a less drastic restriction (Paras 33-34).
(D) Proportionality test - State action must be evaluated on whether it pursues a legitimate aim, is suitable for achieving that aim, is necessary (least restrictive measure available), and is adequately balanced with the rights of the individual (Paras 54-58).
Facts of the case:
The State government introduced amendments to poison rules requiring that a specific chemical (methanol) be mixed with a bitterant and a colourant before sale to non-drug manufacturers to make it unpalatable and identifiable, thereby preventing its use in spurious liquor. The rules also required sellers to verify a specific license (Form A) for purchase and mandated the confiscation of the substance if possessed without such a license. Industrial users challenged these rules, stating that the additives rendered their final products unacceptable to other industries and damaged the manufacturing process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rules were arbitrary and lacked a rational nexus with the intended object. It observed that a significant portion of the supply of spurious liquor operates through illegal and unlicensed channels, which these rules do not address. Furthermore, it was noted that denaturants could be masked by other agents, rendering the identification measure ineffective, while the burden imposed on lawful industries was substantial and continuing.
Issues: Whether the rules mandating the addition of denaturants to methanol and restricting its purchase and possession are arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the impugned rules failed the test of proportionality. While the aim of preventing death from spurious liquor was legitimate, the means adopted were not suitable or necessary. The verification of a specific license for purchase was found to be disproportionate as it ignored the actual use by downstream manufacturers. The mandate for denaturing was held to be an ineffective surface-level measure that did not address the core issues of diversion and pilferage, thereby failing to strike a balance between the state's objective and the fundamental right to carry on trade.
Result: Petitions allowed; rules declared violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- trade regulation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued rules arbitrary, disproportionate; State argued reasonable to prevent hooch tragedies. (Para 15 , 16 )
3. Rules fail proportionality test, manifestly arbitrary, lack rational nexus, impose disproportionate burden on industries. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 )
4. Subordinate legislation must be reasonable and proportionate; restriction must have proximate nexus to object; less drastic measures available. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
5. Petitions allowed; Rules 18A and 18B declared violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); appeal disposed of. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 )
6. What is the standard of review for subordinate legislation under the Constitution?
Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds of manifest arbitrariness, unreasonableness, lack of proportionality, and must satisfy Part III tests. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. When does a restriction under Article 19(1)(g) become unreasonable?
A restriction is unreasonable if it is disproportionate, excessive, and less drastic measures are available to achieve the intended object. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 )
8. What is the test of proportionality under Article 14?
The test requires legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and a balance between the burden imposed and the benefit achieved. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
9. Does mandatory denaturing of methanol have a rational nexus with preventing hooch tragedies?
No, because it does not address diversion through illegal channels and imposes a continuous burden without effective prevention. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
10. Is Rule 18B requiring possession of methanol only under Form A licence valid?
No, it renders Form B permit redundant and is disproportionate as it fails to balance regulation with industrial needs. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 53 )
JUDGMENT
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-
INDEX
| I. | BACKGROUND |
| 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 |
| ii. | Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-State |
| III. | ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION |
| IV. | ANALYSIS |
| 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 |
| V. | CONCLUSION |
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”.
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 ”).
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 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
