Back
FSSAI tells Old Monk cannot be sold as 'Rum' under current label
In a significant regulatory showdown, the has informed the that the iconic alcoholic beverage Old Monk cannot be marketed as "Rum" in its current form. The regulator's affidavit, submitted before a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, argues that the product relies on artificial and nature-identical rum flavouring substances rather than the natural fermentation and maturation processes that define genuine rum. The court has adjourned the matter to , maintaining the existing prohibition on Old Monk's sale in Maharashtra.
The Core Dispute: 'Rum' vs. 'Rum-Flavoured Spirit'
At the heart of the case is a fundamental question of product identity. The FSSAI contends that Old Monk, produced by , does not qualify as rum under the . Instead, the regulator insists it should be labelled as a "rum-flavoured spirit" or "flavoured rum" to avoid consumers.
During the hearing,
, representing the FSSAI, submitted:
"The addition of artificial and nature identical rum flavouring substances masks the natural characteristics and alters the true identity of the product, thereby rendering the product
under the applicable regulatory standards. Furthermore, calling such products as rum is
."
The affidavit further clarified that the characteristic flavour of rum should derive from natural ingredients, fermentation processes, and maturation techniques—not from added flavouring agents. The FSSAI pointed out that the product's label already lists "artificial flavor (Rum)" and "nature identical flavouring substances," contradicting its claim to be genuine rum.
Age Claims Under Fire: '7 Years Old Blended' Deemed
Beyond the flavouring issue, the FSSAI also took exception to age-related claims on Old Monk's label, particularly the phrases "7 years old blended" and "very old vatted." According to the regulator, mandates that the age stated for a blended spirit must refer to the youngest spirit in the blend, not the oldest. The FSSAI argued that consumers could be misled into believing the entire liquid was aged for seven years when, in fact, only a small proportion of the blend may have reached that age.
The had issued a similar directive in August, stating that age claims must be based on the youngest component. The company has since agreed to remove the "7 years old blended" tag from its labels, signaling a willingness to comply with the regulator's concerns.
Court Proceedings and Interim Stance
The bench, after hearing submissions from for Mohan Rocky Springwater, noted that the company had agreed to modify its labelling. Proposed changes include adding terms like "Added Flavour" or "Flavoured Rum" to the product, as well as dropping the disputed age claim. However, the FSSAI requested additional time to examine the revised labels and determine whether they fully comply with regulatory requirements.
When the court asked the about the timeline for approving a modified label, indicated that routine approvals take about a month for new labels and 15 to 45 days for modified ones. The bench, declining to grant any , adjourned the matter and allowed the prohibition on sale to remain in effect.
The company had earlier claimed it was losing approximately ₹1 crore per day during the 120 days the ban had been in force, underscoring the high commercial stakes involved.
Legal Implications: Defining Standards for Indian-Made Foreign Liquor
This case is part of a broader regulatory crackdown on Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) manufacturers who use neutral spirits (extra neutral alcohol or grain neutral spirit) as a base and add flavouring and colouring agents to mimic traditional spirits like rum, whisky, and brandy. The FSSAI’s stance challenges an established industry practice that has long allowed mass-market alcoholic beverages in India to be sold under standard categories despite their non-traditional production methods.
For legal professionals, the case raises critical questions about the interpretation of the , and the Alcoholic Beverages Regulations. Key issues include: - The scope of the regulator's power to define product categories and prohibit . - The obligation of manufacturers to disclose the true nature of their products, particularly when artificial flavouring is used. - The interplay between FSSAI regulations and state excise laws, which also govern alcohol labelling and sale.
The court’s eventual decision could set a for how IMFL products are classified, labelled, and marketed across India. If the FSSAI’s position is upheld, brands such as Old Monk, McDowell’s No. 1 Rum, Antiquity Blue Whisky, and Royal Challenge Whisky—all of which have faced similar actions—may be forced to rebrand their products as "rum-flavoured spirits" or "whisky-flavoured spirits," fundamentally altering consumer perception and marketing strategies.
Industry Impact and Consumer Reaction
The controversy has sparked widespread discussion among consumers, many of whom grew up with Old Monk as their first introduction to rum. Emotional reactions on social media reflect a sense of betrayal, with users lamenting that
"my life is a lie."
Yet, loyalists interviewed in the press remain unfazed, insisting that they drink Old Monk for its taste and nostalgia, not its technical classification.
From an industry perspective, the FSSAI’s enforcement action represents a shift towards greater consumer protection and transparency. However, it also poses significant challenges for distillers who have built billion-dollar brands on the back of affordable, flavoured spirits. The IMFL market, valued at $60 billion in 2025 and projected to exceed $101 billion by 2032, relies heavily on these products to bridge the gap between premium imports and country liquor.
Mixologist and author Shatbhi Basu noted that India’s mass-market spirits have historically not been recognized by international regulators in the EU, UK, and US. She welcomed the move towards clearer labelling but emphasized the need for practical regulations that acknowledge the reality of India's raw material constraints—namely, the historical reliance on molasses due to grain being needed for food security.
The Way Forward: New Product Categories?
Legal experts suggest that the FSSAI could consider creating new sub-categories such as "Indian Rum" or "Indian Whisky," akin to the "Indian Brandy" category established in 2018. This would allow manufacturers to continue using neutral spirit bases with added flavours while ensuring consumers receive honest information about the product's nature. Such an approach would balance regulatory compliance, consumer rights, and commercial viability.
Mohan Rocky Springwater, which has already agreed to relabel its product, appears willing to adapt. The next hearing on will be closely watched by the industry, as it may clarify the FSSAI's final requirements and set the timeline for the revised labels' approval.
Conclusion
The Old Monk case is more than a dispute over a single brand; it is a landmark moment for India's alcoholic beverage sector. As the deliberates on the balance between established industry practices and evolving food safety standards, the outcome will have lasting implications for manufacturers, consumers, and regulators alike. For now, the prohibition on Old Monk's sale remains, and the industry awaits clarity on what can legitimately be called "rum" in India.
