Supreme Court cites 1991 Mumbai hooch deaths in methanol rules case

The petitioners argue these rules are arbitrary, disproportionate, and harmful to industrial use, while the State argues they are necessary to prevent methanol from being mistaken for or used in illicit liquor.

Who it concerns: Petitioners: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., The Chemical and Alkali Merchands Association & Anr., and Indian Chemical Council. Respondents: Union of India & Anr. and State of Maharashtra. Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16236 of 2019.
• The Court framed the issue of whether Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The Court noted that the impugned rules restrict the purchase of methanol and mandate the addition of denatonium Saccharide (bitterant) and methylene carmine (colourant) to every 100 liters of methanol sold to non-drug manufacturers.
• The Court observed that the rules mandate confiscation of methanol found in possession without a valid licence in Form A.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order, relief granted, or dismissal of the petitions.
• The Court cited a 1991 incident in Mumbai where approximately 93 persons died after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol, which led to the impugned rules.
• The Court noted that the High Court had previously granted interim relief permitting the purchase of methanol by non-drug manufacturers subject to submission of purchase orders to the Food and Drug Administration.