Maharashtra Methanol Rules Struck Down: Supreme Court Applies the Proportionality Test
Date Published
How far can a State go in restricting a lawful trade to stop a deadly crime? On 19 September 2026, the Supreme Court said that a State cannot burden honest industry with rules that do not really stop the crime.
The case is M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. and Another v Union of India and Another, 2026 INSC 1009. It was decided by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran. The Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules on the ground that they violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The tragedy that led to the rules
In 1991, about 250 people drank methanol-contaminated liquor at the Chhaya Bar in Mumbai. Ninety three of them died. After this, the State appointed a committee to study the causes and suggest steps to prevent a repeat.
The result was a 2011 notification that changed the Maharashtra Poisons Rules. Three new rules were the centre of the challenge.
Rule | What it required |
18A(1) | Methanol could be bought only by persons holding a Form A licence. |
18A(2) | A bitterant and a colourant had to be added to methanol before sale to buyers who were not drug manufacturers. |
18B | Methanol possessed without a licence was liable to confiscation. |
A bitterant is a substance that makes a liquid taste bitter. A colourant changes its colour. The idea was that a bitter or coloured liquid could not be passed off as drinkable liquor.
Industrial users of methanol challenged these rules. The report notes that the rules had been under a stay for about 14 years.
Also Read: EPF Dues: Supreme Court Ruling on Defunct State Corporations
The proportionality test
The Court judged the rules using the proportionality test. This is a way of checking if a restriction on a right is fair. The report describes the questions as follows.
• Is it necessary? Is there a real need for the restriction to meet a legitimate goal?
• Is it suitable? Will the measure actually help achieve that goal?
• Is it the least burdensome? Is there another way to reach the goal with less harm to the right?
The legitimate goal here was to prevent methanol from being misused in spurious liquor. The rights involved were the right to equality in Article 14 and the right to carry on a trade or profession in Article 19(1)(g).
Why the rules failed
The Court found that the rules did not pass the test, and it gave three reasons.
The burden was disproportionate. The rules put the heavy load on lawful industrial users, who used methanol for legitimate purposes. They did not target the actual criminals.
The rules were ineffective. The bitterant and the colourant only give a cosmetic identification. They do not stop diversion and theft of methanol, which is how illicit liquor is made. The bench described the approach as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic", a comment that means fixing the surface while the real problem remains.
There was no real link with the mischief. The rules could not cure the very problem they were meant to address. The report also records the finding that they were manifestly arbitrary, and therefore violated Article 14.
The Court added that identification measures cannot replace hard enforcement. Investigation, monitoring of pilferage, accountability of licence holders and strict compliance conditions are what stop such tragedies. The State had less restrictive options but did not use them.
The fact that the rules had remained stayed for 14 years strengthened the Court's view. It suggested that the rules were not needed in practice and that they still burdened manufacturers.
MP ADPO 2026 MCQ Series | Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) MCQ | Part 1
What this decision teaches
There are three ideas to take away.
• A goal can be right while the method is wrong. Preventing hooch tragedies is a strong public interest. But a measure must be well matched to the goal.
• Article 19(1)(g) is not only about permits. It also protects lawful business from unnecessary burden, and a restriction on it must pass the proportionality test.
• Article 14 covers arbitrariness. A rule that has no real connection with its purpose can be struck down as arbitrary.
For the exam
For the Prelims, remember the case name, the citation 2026 INSC 1009, the bench, the date, the rules (18A and 18B) and the Articles (14 and 19(1)(g)).
For the Mains, a likely question is, "Explain the proportionality test with reference to recent Supreme Court decisions." Begin by explaining the test, list the steps, then show how the Court applied them in Balaji Formalin. Always note that the case is a State law being tested against fundamental rights.
In the interview, you might be asked if courts should interfere in public safety regulation. A balanced reply is that courts leave the choice of policy to the State, but they will step in when a rule burdens a right without helping the purpose.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is the name and citation of the case?
M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. and Another v Union of India and Another, 2026 INSC 1009.
Q2. Who decided it and when?
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, on 19 September 2026.
Q3. Which rules were challenged?
Rules 18A(1), 18A(2) and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, brought in by a 2011 notification.
Q4. What led to these rules?
The 1991 Chhaya Bar tragedy in Mumbai, where about 250 people drank methanol-contaminated liquor and 93 died.
Q5. What did Rule 18A(2) require?
Adding a bitterant and a colourant to methanol before sale to buyers other than drug manufacturers.
Q6. Which Articles did the rules violate?
Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g).
Q7. What is the proportionality test?
It checks whether a restriction on a right is necessary, suitable and no more burdensome than needed to achieve a legitimate goal.
Q8. Why did the Court call the rules ineffective?
Because the denaturants only give a cosmetic identification and do not stop the diversion and pilferage of methanol.
Q9. What did the Court suggest instead?
Stronger enforcement, meaning investigation, monitoring of pilferage, accountability of licensees and strict compliance conditions.
Q10. Why did the 14-year stay matter?
It supported the finding that the rules were an unnecessary burden on industry, while public safety remained inadequately addressed.
Conclusion
Balaji Formalin v Union of India is a modern lesson in proportionality. The Court did not deny the seriousness of the 1991 tragedy. It said that safety rules must actually work, and that honest businesses cannot be made to carry the cost of rules that do not.
If you want to use recent judgments to strengthen your constitutional law answers, prepare with Aashayein Judiciary. Nitesh Sir and the team explain cases like this in exam-ready form. Use our Judiciary Notes, PYQ analysis and Mock Test practice in Online Judiciary Coaching to prepare for the Civil Judge Exam and PCS J Exam.