सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा: शराब प्रतिबंध नहीं रोकेगा मेथनॉल‑लैस्ड ‘हूच’ हादसे, गुजरात में 600 से अधिक मौतें

Despite Liquor Ban, Gujarat Witnessed Several Hooch Tragedies : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 Sept 2026 7:22 PM IST

Complete alcohol ban often drives liquor trade underground, the Court said.

Despite maintaining a strict prohibition policy for decades, Gujarat has witnessed several major hooch tragedies involving methanol-laced illicit liquor, the Supreme Court has observed while examining the constitutional validity of Maharashtra's restrictions on methanol.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted that Gujarat, a "dry State", had witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since its formation and Independence, claiming the lives of more than 600 people. The Court made the observation while discussing measures required to prevent deaths caused by spurious liquor.

The observations came in a judgment striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which restricted the purchase and possession of methanol and mandated the addition of colourant and bitterant to methanol before its sale to non-drug manufacturers.

The Supreme Court said the experience of Gujarat demonstrated that prohibition by itself did not eliminate the problem of illicit liquor and methanol-related tragedies.

The Court noted that "hooch tragedies" involving laththa laced with methanol had repeatedly resulted in severe public-health crises in Gujarat despite the State maintaining prohibition since 1960.

Recent hooch tragedies also noted

The judgment also referred to recent hooch tragedies in Bhavnagar, Gujarat and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, which had claimed around 13 and 15 lives respectively.

The Bench said these incidents were a reminder for authorities to "wake up and act".

“History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews. Take the case of the State of Gujarat. The State of Gujarat has a strict prohibition policy. It is a dry State. The State of Gujarat has witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since the State's formation and independence, claiming the lives of over 600 people. Despite, the State of Gujarat maintaining a strict prohibition policy since its creation in 1960, hooch tragedies, (laththa laced with methanol) has rapidly led to severe public health crises.”, the Court said.

"Complete alcohol ban often drives liquor trade underground"

The Court observed that history showed that complete alcohol bans could drive the liquor trade underground and increase the prevalence of unregulated and potentially lethal brews.

The Bench referred to Gujarat as an example while discussing the relationship between prohibition and hooch tragedies. It also quoted a 1937 article by jurist Nani Palkhivala on prohibition, which argued that merely prohibiting liquor would not necessarily address excessive drinking and its consequences.

The Court subsequently identified several problems associated with prohibition, including loss of tax revenue, expenditure on enforcement, corruption in police and excise administration, illegal distilling and the resultant drug menace.

At the same time, the Court made clear that it was not questioning the State's objective of preventing deaths caused by methanol-adulterated liquor. It recognised prevention of such deaths as a legitimate and important public-health objective.

Background

The Court was considering a challenge by methanol-using industries to Maharashtra's regulatory framework, which had been introduced following a 1991 hooch tragedy in Mumbai in which approximately 93 people died after consuming methanol-laced liquor.

Following that incident, Maharashtra had constituted a committee headed by P.R. Parthasarthy, then Additional Director General of Police, to examine the causes of the tragedy and recommend preventive measures. One of the recommendations subsequently resulted in the 2011 amendments to the Maharashtra Poisons Rules.

The Supreme Court observed that the Parthasarthy Committee had identified several causes behind liquor tragedies, including diversion of methanol through illegal and unlicensed channels, methanol being available as a cheaper alternative to ethyl alcohol, corruption in law-enforcement agencies, confusion between ethyl and methyl alcohol, and pilferage.

Against this background, the Court found that Maharashtra's requirement of adding colourant and bitterant to methanol did not adequately address the principal sources of diversion and pilferage.

The Court observed that people involved in supplying spurious liquor through illegal or unlicensed channels may not even pass through the lawful point of sale regulated by the impugned rules. It therefore held that the denaturing requirement could not effectively address diversion occurring outside the regulated framework.

The Bench stressed that existing safeguards under the Maharashtra Poisons Rules needed to be implemented effectively, while also suggesting stronger measures to prevent diversion and pilferage.

Among the measures suggested were comprehensive verification of licence and permit applicants, periodic scrutiny of existing licences, monitoring actual methanol usage, requiring industrial consumers to return unused or excess methanol, reconciliation of consumption and closing stock, and suspension or cancellation of licences in cases of violations.

The Court also suggested dedicated tankers for transporting methanol, strict supervision of transportation and storage, and tamper-evident sealing of containers to prevent siphoning or unexplained losses.

The Court ultimately held the impugned Rules 18A and 18B violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and allowed the writ petitions.

Cause Title: M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohan Jayakar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Wable, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur Savadikar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News