Opening paragraph without heading...
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Notification No. DRG 2006/1006/C.R. 659/06/DRUGS-2 dated 21.01.2011, which amended the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 by inserting Rules 18A and 18B. These rules mandate pre-sale verification of the purchaser’s licence in Form A and the addition of denaturant and colourant to methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers, with confiscation of methanol possessed without a Form A licence.
Key Facts
- In 1991, around 250 persons consumed spurious liquor from Chhaya Bar, Andheri, Mumbai Suburban; approximately 93 persons died.
- The State Government appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of P.R. Parthasarthy, Addl. Director General of Police, to examine the tragedy.
- The Committee’s report led to the 2011 notification amending the Maharashtra Poisons Rules.
- Rule 18A(1) requires a licensee selling methanol to first ascertain the purchaser’s use by verifying the licence in Form A.
- Rule 18A(2) mandates mixing 1 gram of methylene carmine and 4 grams of denatonium saccharide per 100 litres of methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers.
- Rule 18B provides for confiscation of methanol found in possession without a valid Form A licence.
- Rule 18C gives persons already in the methanol business ninety days to obtain a Form A licence from the date of publication of the Maharashtra Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 2011.
Procedural History
- 1991: Chhaya Bar incident leading to loss of life.
- Post-1991: Constitution of P.R. Parthasarthy Committee; report submitted to State Government.
- 21.01.2011: Issuance of Notification No. DRG 2006/1006/C.R. 659/06/DRUGS-2.
- 2012: Writ Petitions Nos. 2153 and 2535 of 2012 filed in the High Court of Bombay.
- 24.02.2012: High Court granted interim relief permitting purchase of methanol by non-drug manufacturers subject to submission of purchase orders to the Food and Drug Administration.
- 03.05.2019: High Court dismissed the petitions (impugned judgment) upholding the validity of Rules 18A and 18B, but extended the interim relief to enable the appellant to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court.
- 2019: Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019 filed by M/S Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & ANR.; Writ Petition (C) No. 1059 of 2019 filed by The Chemical and Alkali Mechands Association & ANR.
- 2026: Civil Appeal No. 13008 of 2026 (SLP(C) No. 16236 of 2019) filed by Indian Chemical Council vs. State of Maharashtra.
- 18 September 2026: Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a declaration that the 2011 notification and the impugned Rules 18A and 18B are ultra vires the Poisons Act, 1919 and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and consequential relief including quashing of the impugned rules and directions to the State to adopt effective measures to prevent spurious liquor tragedies.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Rules 18A and 18B, respectively, of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, as inserted by the 2011 notification, are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution on the grounds of being arbitrary, disproportionate, and lacking a reasonable nexus with the object of preventing methanol misuse.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Counsel, argued that methanol is a key industrial input for products such as formaldehyde, disinfectants, and resins; the mandatory addition of denaturant and colourant renders it unsuitable for industrial use, causing loss of yield, catalyst damage, and environmental harm. He contended that Rule 18A(1) is impossible to comply with because Form A does not specify the end-use of the purchaser, and that the rule erroneously assumes that verifying a Form A licence prevents diversion for illicit liquor. He further submitted that the colourant contains carcinogenic substances, and that the impugned notification is a disproportionate exercise of power violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) as it is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). He relied on the absence of less restrictive alternatives such as cancellation of licences of errant licensees, stringent renewal conditions, and mandatory return of unsold methanol.
For the Respondent
Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, counsel for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that methanol’s easy miscibility with liquor poses a grave public health risk, and the impugned rules serve to identify methanol through colourant and deter consumption through bitterant, thus having a direct nexus with the objective of preventing spurious liquor tragedies. He argued that the power to “regulate sale” under Sections 2 and 8 of the Poisons Act, 1919 permits the State to prescribe conditions making a poison identifiable, traceable, and less prone to misuse. He relied on Goodwill Paint & Chemical Industry v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 16, to assert that statutory regulation of inherently dangerous substances is permissible, and maintained that the restriction is proportional and reasonable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Poisons Act, 1919 and the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, noting that Rule 4 requires a Form A licence for sale or possession for sale of any poison, while Rule 10 delineates to whom poison may be sold. It observed that Rule 18A(1) effectively converts the Form A licence into a tool for ascertaining end-use, a function already covered by Rule 11 (register of sales) and the Form B permit. The Court held that this verification does not ascertain the actual use of methanol and fails to prevent diversion through illegal or unlicensed channels, pilferage, or substitution, thereby lacking a proximate nexus with the object.
"The impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14."
Regarding Rule 18A(2), the Court found that the addition of bitterant and colourant merely aids identification at the point of sale and does not address the core mischief of diversion through illicit channels, confusion between ethyl and methyl alcohol, corruption, or the availability of methanol as a cheaper alternative. The burden on industries - loss of yield, reduced catalyst life, increased by-product formation, higher power consumption, and environmental impact - is substantial and continuing, while the benefit claimed by the State is only a possibility. Consequently, the rule fails the proportionality test under Article 19(6) and violates Article 19(1)(g).
On Rule 18B, the Court noted that confiscation of methanol without a Form A licence renders the Form B permit nugatory, as a lawful possessor under Form B would still be subject to confiscation, thus imposing an excessive burden without corresponding benefit.
The Court concluded that less restrictive measures - such as cancellation or debarring of licences of errant licensees, stringent conditions at licence grant/renewal, mandatory return of unsold methanol, and penal consequences for register discrepancies - were available but not considered by the State, rendering the impugned rules arbitrary and disproportionate.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petitions and the civil appeal, declared Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and directed the State of Maharashtra to consider the Parthasarthy Committee report and implement its recommendations for preventing spurious liquor tragedies. No specific monetary relief or compliance timeline was prescribed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Regulation Must Be Proportionate and Not Arbitrary
- Authorities must demonstrate a reasonable and proximate nexus between the challenged measure and its stated object.
- Where less restrictive alternatives exist, the measure is likely to be struck down as disproportionate.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the burden imposed on a class of citizens is outweighed by the purported public benefit.
Identification Measures Must Address the Core Mischief
- Regulations that merely identify a hazardous substance at point of sale, without curbing diversion or illicit use, fail the proportionality test.
- Effective regulation must target supply-chain vulnerabilities such as unlicensed channels, pilferage, and corruption.
- Mere colouration or bitterant addition is insufficient if the substance can still be diverted post-identification.
Licensing Frameworks Must Retain Their Distinct Purpose
- Rules that alter the fundamental purpose of a licence (e.g., using Form A to ascertain end-use) undermine the licensing scheme and render ancillary permits redundant.
- Licensing conditions must be directly related to the activity licensed and not impose unrelated obligations.
- Any condition that renders a valid permit ineffective is vulnerable to being struck down as excessive.
