No Law Barred Dual MRPs Prior to 2018: J&K HC Quashes Case

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has officially put to rest a decade-long legal dispute, quashing criminal proceedings against Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. regarding the practice of " dual MRPs ." In a ruling delivered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal on July 3, 2026 , the Court clarified that no statutory prohibition against differential pricing existed in 2016, rendering the criminal complaint against the beverage giant legally unsustainable.

A Bottled Controversy The case originated from an inspection conducted by the Legal Metrology Department on October 25, 2016 , at a Domino’s Pizza outlet in Katra. During the inspection, officials observed a 600 ml Coca-Cola bottle being sold with a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹60, while identical products were found to carry an MRP of ₹35 in open-market retail outlets.

Viewing this price disparity as an act of " arbitrary overcharging ," the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Reasi, filed a criminal complaint against the company. The Magistrate took cognizance of the matter, alleging violations of Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 , and associated rules governing packaged commodities.

Arguments at the Bar Hindustan Coca-Cola mounted a robust defense, asserting that their labeling complied with all standing laws of the time. The company argued that the Legal Metrology Act and its 2011 Rules lacked any provision explicitly banning manufacturers from setting different MRPs for specific retail channels, such as premium outlets or restaurants. They emphasized that consumers were never charged above the uniquely printed MRP on the specific bottle in question.

Conversely, the state contended that the price difference constituted an unfair trade practice , asserting that the arbitrary dual-pricing structure directly violated the intent of the Legal Metrology framework.

The Court’s Legal Analysis Justice Rajnesh Oswal’s analysis focused on the timeline of statutory evolution. The Court observed that Rule 18(2A) , the specific provision that explicitly restricts manufacturers from declaring different MRPs for identical commodities, was only introduced via an amendment in 2017, taking effect on January 1, 2018 .

The Court held that applying this rule to an incident from October 2016 would constitute an impermissible retrospective application of a penal provision . Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish how Rule 2(bc) —a definitional clause regarding "Institutional Consumers"—could serve as a foundation for criminal liability.

Key Observations The judgment underscored the limits of regulatory oversight at the time:

* "It is, therefore, manifest that on the date of the alleged inspection, there existed no bar preventing a manufacturer from declaring differential MRPs for an identical product."

* "This restriction was brought into force for the first time only w.e.f. 01.01.2018 through G.S.R. 629(E), dated 23rd June, 2017 ."

* "Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the uncontroverted facts fail to disclose the commission of any offense by the petitioner-company."

Verdict and Implications Finding that the continuation of the proceedings served as an " abuse of the process of law ," the High Court quashed the criminal complaint, the Magistrate’s cognizance order, and all consequential proceedings.

This ruling serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that penal consequences cannot be imposed for conduct that was not explicitly prohibited by law at the time of its commission. By confirming that manufacturers maintained autonomy over pricing structures prior to 2018, the Court has provided much-needed clarity for corporations operating across diverse retail environments in India.