Why Did the Supreme Court Reject Maharashtra’s Methanol Rules?

On 18 September 2026, the Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which imposed restrictions on the sale and use of methanol by non-drug manufacturers.The Court held that the restrictions were arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Background

• Methanol (methyl alcohol) is a highly toxic chemical widely used in formaldehyde, paints, resins and other industrial products.
• Maharashtra tightened methanol regulation after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, in which spurious liquor containing methanol caused about 93 deaths.
• In 2011, Rules 18A and 18B were introduced to regulate methanol sales and prevent its diversion for illicit liquor.

What Did the Rules Provide?

• Rule 18A(1): Sellers had to verify the purchaser’s prescribed licence before selling methanol.
• Rule 18A(2): Methanol supplied to non-drug manufacturers had to contain a colourant and bitterant.
• Rule 18B: Allowed confiscation of methanol possessed without the specified licence.

Why Did the SC Strike Them Down?

• The Court accepted prevention of methanol-related hooch deaths as a legitimate objective, but found the measures unsuitable and excessive.
• Verification of a purchaser’s licence did not establish that methanol would not subsequently be diverted or misused.
• Adding colourant and bitterant had no demonstrated proximate nexus with preventing illicit liquor production.
• The additives could interfere with legitimate uses in paint, pharmaceutical, laboratory and chemical industries.
• Rule 18B conflicted with other lawful licensing arrangements and was considered redundant.
• Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court held that legitimate public-health goals cannot justify restrictions that are unnecessary or excessively burdensome.

Constitutional Rights Involved

• Article 14: Protection against arbitrary and irrational State action.
• Article 19(1)(g): Right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Restrictions on trade must have a rational connection with their objective and satisfy proportionality.

Guidelines Issued by the Court

• States should strengthen coordination among excise, police, transport, industries and health departments to prevent illicit liquor.
• Authorities should monitor inter-State movement, illegal storage and diversion of industrial methanol.
• Methanol licences should be issued after proper verification and subjected to periodic review.
• Industrial users should maintain stock and consumption records and account for unused or excess methanol.
• Methanol transportation should use secure, sealed and supervised tankers to prevent theft or diversion.
• Violations should attract suspension or cancellation of licences.
• States should strengthen de-addiction, counselling and support mechanisms for affected communities.

The Supreme Court did not reject regulation of methanol itself; it rejected Maharashtra’s particular restrictions because they imposed substantial burdens on legitimate industry without adequately demonstrating that they would prevent methanol diversion and hooch tragedies.