Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 – rr.18A and 18B – Validity of – Writ petition by the petitioners seeking declaration that Notification dated 21.01.2011 be declared ultra vires the Poisons Act, 1919, as well as the Constitution to the extent of insertion of rr.18A and 18B, respectively in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules – Petitioner’s case that rr.18A and 18B restrict purchase of methanol, and mandate the addition of bitterant and colourant to methanol before sale to a non-drug manufacturer; and by operation of r.18B, any possession of methanol without a licence in Form A liable to confiscation – High Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of the impugned rules – Correctness: Held: rr.18A and 18B are violative of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution – Restriction imposed by sub-rule (1) of r.18A is disproportionate or rather wider than what the object justifies – It proceeds on the erroneous understanding that by verifying licence in Form A the seller would be able to ascertain the use of the methanol – Restriction fails to strike a balance as, it shifts the burden onto a class of persons while also leaving the public interest unserved – Thus, the sub-rule fails to constitute a reasonable restriction in public interest within the meaning of Art.19(6), and thus, violate Art.19(1)(g) – As regards sub-rule (2) of r.18A, the requirement of addition of bitterant and colourant in methanol prescribed therein fails the test of being reasonable and having a proximate nexus to the object – Parthasarthy Committee Report would reveal manifold causes for liquor tragedies apart from methanol being sold illegally by the licensees, being diverted through illegal and unlicensed channel, or pilferage – Person who indulges in diverting methanol through illegal or unlicensed channels, or by pilferage, may not pass through the point of sale that the impugned rule seeks to regulate – What sub-rule (2) achieves is mere identification at the cost of restricting marketability of the final product and imposing additional financial burden on the industries – In practicality, the impugned rules prescribe a regulatory framework that does not prevent the misuse of methanol in liquor which takes place in the unregulated field – Sub-rule even in the best case of full compliance cannot prevent the misuse it aims to prevent – Thus, it cannot be said to bear a reasonable and proximate nexus with the object it seeks to achieve – It addresses a mischief it does not in fact remedy while imposing a continuous burden on the industries – Furthermore, intention behind the introduction of the impugned rules cannot be discreditied – Although, the intention in mandating denaturants was identification, yet the intention solely would not pass the test of manifest arbitrariness – Impugned rules cannot be said to be reasonable or rather a rational application of mind in exercising the law-making power – Impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Art.14 – Also, impugned rules fail to pass the test of proportionality, and result in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed u/Art.19(1)(g) of the nondrug manufacturers – Maharashtra Poisons (Amendment) Rules, 2011. [Paras 35-60]
Liquor – Hooch Tragedies, involving laththa laced with methanol – Prevention – Suggestions to States and Union Territories to prevent hooch tragedies – Suggestions given as regards cooperation and working of various Departments, as regards the existing Rules in States/Union Territories, and as regards health and awareness – Suggestions emphasise breaking the chain of supply and demand of illicit liquor by strict implementation of the State Prohibition Law; strengthening enforcement at state borders; and regulation of methanol – Implementation of peripheral laws concerning procurement, manufacture, transportation, sale and consumption of liquor within the state; State police, in coordination with the prohibition department and the excise department, to identify and bring to book local breweries; monitoring of industrial units to find out which industrial units are manufacturing such chemical solvents and selling them illegally to liquor makers; existing rules in a State, if any, which regulate methanol be amended; State rules governing the grant of licence and permit require a comprehensive re-look, to ensure that a licence or permit is not granted as a matter of course but only after due verification; any person who is found to have defaulted or breached the conditions of the licence or permit, or the rules made thereunder, liable to have such licence or permit suspended or cancelled, and should further be debarred from being granted any fresh licence or permit; Methanol be transported in dedicated tankers earmarked exclusively for that purpose, to eliminate the possibility of pilferage or substitution; State Health and Family Welfare Department to have a comprehensive policy and a specialized cell to handle liquor tragedies – Though the Court may issue various directions, yet the police machinery to see to it that the provisions of the Act governing regulation of alcohol are implemented strictly and effectively. [Paras 61-67]
Legislation – Subordinate legislation – Challenged to: Held: Can be on the same grounds available against a plenary legislation – Subordinate legislation should not be an exercise of power that is unreasonable, lacking an adequate determining principle, irrational, excessive or disproportionate – Object behind the State action, the manner in which it is undertaken, and its effect on the fundamental rights, all must meet the tests of Part III of the Constitution. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.