A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observations while striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules. The rules regulated the purchase of methanol and required non-drug manufacturers to add a bittering substance and colour to methanol before it could be sold.
According to a Times of India report, the court said recent incidents involving poisonous liquor in Bhavnagar in Gujarat and Sagar in Madhya Pradesh should serve as warnings to authorities. The two incidents claimed 13 and 15 lives respectively.
The bench observed that history shows complete prohibition can, in several instances, push the liquor trade underground. This can increase the risk of unregulated and potentially deadly liquor entering circulation.
Referring to Gujarat, the Supreme Court noted that the state has a strict prohibition policy. According to the bench, since the formation of the state and India's Independence, Gujarat has witnessed at least 10 major poisonous liquor tragedies in which more than 600 people have died.
The Supreme Court also referred to the background in which Maharashtra introduced the disputed rules. They were framed after 93 people died in Mumbai in 1991 after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol. The rules imposed restrictions on the purchase of methanol and required non-drug manufacturers to add a bittering substance and colour before selling it.
The Supreme Court did not accept the Maharashtra government's plea and held that there appeared to be no rational connection between the disputed rules and the objective of preventing incidents involving poisonous liquor.
The bench clarified that it was not questioning the intention of the state. However, it said good intentions alone were not sufficient to sustain a rule against the test of arbitrariness.
The court said the state had failed to explain how adding a bittering substance and colour to methanol would consistently prevent or discourage its use. The bench also questioned how adding these substances could definitively prevent deaths caused by the consumption of poisonous liquor.
Another key question raised by the court was how the measure could prevent the manufacture of spurious liquor using other adulterating substances if certain substances were added to methanol.
On these grounds, the Supreme Court struck down the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, bringing the legal challenge over Rules 18A and 18B to an end while also highlighting the wider risks associated with complete alcohol prohibition.
About The Author
Comment List