Supreme Court Strikes Down Maharashtra’s Methanol Rules

23 Sep 2026

Tags: Governance   Policy Interventions   Policy design flaws

Source: The Hindu

Context: On 18 September, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, concerning the sale, possession and use of methanol.

• The Court held that the restrictions were arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• However, it recognised the State's legitimate authority to regulate methanol and issued guidelines to prevent illicit liquor and methanol-poisoning tragedies.

What is Methanol?

• Methanol (methyl alcohol) is a highly toxic chemical widely used as an industrial raw material in formaldehyde, paints, resins and other chemical products.
• Consumption of methanol can cause severe poisoning, including blindness, organ damage and death.
• Its potential diversion for manufacturing spurious liquor makes it an important public-health and regulatory concern.

Background of the Case

• Maharashtra tightened methanol controls following the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, in which around 93 people died after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol.
• A committee headed by then Additional Director General of Police P.R. Parthasarthy examined the tragedy and recommended preventive measures.
• Maharashtra subsequently amended its Poisons Rules in 2011, introducing Rules 18A and 18B.

What Did Rules 18A and 18B Require?

• Rule 18A(1): Sellers had to verify the purchaser's Form A licence before selling methanol.
• Rule 18A(2): Methanol sold to non-drug manufacturers had to be mixed with a colourant and bitterant.
• Rule 18B: Possession of methanol without a Form A licence could result in its confiscation.
• Industrial users argued that colour contamination and additives could make methanol unsuitable for paint, pharmaceutical, laboratory and catalyst-related applications.

State’s Justification

• Maharashtra argued that methanol could be diverted for mixing with liquor and could cause fatal poisoning.
• Making methanol bitter and visibly identifiable was intended to discourage its misuse in illicit liquor.
• The State relied on its statutory power to regulate the possession and sale of poisons.

Constitutional Questions Before the Court

• Article 14 — Equality and Non-Arbitrariness
  • Article 14 requires State action to be fair, non-arbitrary and supported by a rational basis.
  • A regulatory measure can be invalidated when its restrictions lack a sufficient connection with the objective sought to be achieved.
  • Article 19(1)(g) — Freedom of Trade and Occupation
• Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to practise a profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
  • The right is not absolute; reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) are permissible in public interest.
  • The question was therefore whether Maharashtra's methanol restrictions constituted reasonable and proportionate regulation.

Why Did the Supreme Court Strike Down the Rules?

1. Form A Verification Was Disproportionate

• Merely verifying a purchaser's Form A licence did not establish how methanol would actually be used after purchase.
• The requirement therefore imposed a continuing burden on legitimate industrial users without adequately addressing diversion into illicit liquor.

2. Colourant and Bitterant Requirement Lacked Proximate Nexus

• The Court found insufficient evidence that making methanol coloured and bitter would actually prevent its diversion or use in spurious liquor.
• The illicit liquor trade operates largely in an unregulated field, where such industrial safeguards cannot effectively address the underlying misuse.
• Thus, the rule addressed the mischief but did not effectively remedy it while imposing costs on legitimate industries.

3. Rule 18B Created Regulatory Conflict

• Rule 18B authorised confiscation of methanol possessed without a Form A licence.
• The Court found that this could conflict with lawful possession under a Form B permit, effectively making the latter redundant.
• The provision therefore failed the requirement of proportionality and legal coherence.

Proportionality Test Applied by the Court

• The Court applied the proportionality framework associated with K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
• The framework broadly requires a restriction on rights to pursue a legitimate objective through suitable, necessary and proportionate measures.
• Preventing deaths from methanol-adulterated liquor was recognised as a legitimate aim.
• However, the impugned measures were found neither sufficiently suitable nor necessary to achieve that objective.
• Consequently, the restrictions were held violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

Relevant Law: Poisons Act, 1919

• The Poisons Act, 1919 empowers State governments to regulate the possession and sale of specified poisons.
• Therefore, the Supreme Court did not reject the State's general regulatory power over methanol.
• The judgment instead emphasises that regulatory power must itself be exercised constitutionally, without arbitrary or disproportionate restrictions.

Supreme Court Guidelines to Prevent Hooch Tragedies

• Stronger Enforcement and Inter-Departmental Coordination
  • States should coordinate prohibition, excise, police, transport, industries and health departments, along with NGOs.
  • Authorities should strengthen border checks, prevent illegal transportation and identify locations where illicit liquor is manufactured or stored.
  • Industrial units should be monitored to detect illegal diversion of chemicals for producing spurious liquor.
• Tighter Methanol Licensing and Tracking
  • Methanol licences should be issued only after proper verification and subjected to periodic review.
  • Industrial users should maintain stock and consumption records and return unused or excess methanol.
  • Licence suspension or cancellation should follow violations and diversion.
  • Methanol should be transported through dedicated tankers under excise supervision, with effective sealing mechanisms against theft, diversion and tampering.
• Rehabilitation and Public-Health Measures
  • States should expand de-addiction centres and establish counselling and support mechanisms.
  • Families affected by illicit-liquor tragedies should receive appropriate support.
  • The Court emphasised that the effectiveness of these directions ultimately depends upon police and enforcement machinery.