Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction

Order Date: 18 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – M/S Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. (and others) and The Chemical and Alkali Merchants Association; Appellant – Indian Chemical Council. Respondent – State of Maharashtra.
  • Background: In 1991 a tragic incident at Chhaya Bar in Mumbai resulted in 93 deaths after consumption of spurious liquor containing methanol. The State formed a Committee chaired by P.R. Parthasarthy, whose report led to Notification No. DRG 2006/1006/C.R. 659/06/DRUGS‑2 dated 21‑01‑2011, amending the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 to insert Sections 18A and 18B. The amendment classified methanol as a poison, required a licence (Form A) for purchase, mandated addition of 1 g methylene carmine (colourant) and 4 g denatonium saccharide (bitterant) per 100 L of methanol (except for drug‑manufacturing), and provided for confiscation of methanol held without a licence.
  • Petitions: Two writ petitions (W.P. No. 893/2019 and W.P. No. 1059/2019) and a Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 16236/2019) challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 18A and 18B, alleging arbitrariness, disproportionate burden on industry, violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), and impracticability of the “ascertain use” requirement.
  • Submissions – Petitioners: Senior Counsel Balbir Singh argued that methanol is essential for formaldehyde, disinfectants, paints, resins, etc.; the mandatory denaturants render it unusable for downstream industries; the verification of licence in Form A does not disclose the purchaser’s actual use; the colourant contains carcinogenic material; the rules breach the right to carry on trade and are ultra‑vires the Poisons Act.
  • Submissions – Respondent State: Counsel Anand Dilip Landge contended that the rules are a reasonable means to prevent methanol’s misuse in illicit liquor, that the colourant and bitterant aid visual identification, and that the State has authority under Sections 2 and 8 of the Poisons Act to prescribe such safeguards. He relied on Goodwill Paint & Chemical Industry v. Union of India (1992) to support regulation of dangerous substances.
  • Industry Impact Evidence: Affidavits from Aarti Industries Ltd., Akyl Chemicals Ltd., Balaji Amines Ltd., Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd., Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt. Ltd., and BARC highlighted that the mandated additives contaminate final products (e.g., colouration of dimethyl sulphate, catalyst damage in methyl amine production, rejection of ultra‑pure formaldehyde), increase costs, and cause equipment wear.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the constitutional tests for arbitrariness (Art. 14) and reasonable restriction (Art. 19(6)). It held that:
  • The “ascertain use” requirement is ineffective because Form A does not specify the purchaser’s actual industrial purpose, rendering verification impossible.
  • The addition of bitterant and colourant is disproportionate; it imposes a heavy commercial burden while failing to demonstrably prevent methanol diversion into illicit liquor.
  • The rules do not address the primary causes of hooch tragedies (pilferage, illegal channels, cheaper methanol, corruption), thus lacking a proximate nexus to the intended objective.
  • Under the proportionality test (as per K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India), the measures are not suitable, not necessary, and the burden on industry outweighs the speculative benefit.
  • Rule 18B’s blanket confiscation provision conflicts with existing permits (Form B) and is therefore otiose.
  • Conclusion: The impugned Rules 18A and 18B are declared violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and are struck down.

Final Outcome

  • The petitions are allowed; the Maharashtra Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 2011 provisions relating to methanol (Rules 18A & 18B) are declared unconstitutional and unenforceable.
  • All pending applications in the writ petitions are disposed of.
  • The civil appeal (C.A. No. 13008 of 2026) is disposed of in the same terms.
  • The Court directs that a copy of this judgment be sent to all High Courts and to the Chief Secretaries of all States.

Topics: Constitutional Law, Chemical Regulation