Absolute Ban Drives Liquor Trade Underground, SC Suggests Measures Against Hooch Tragedies

The Supreme Court on September 18, 2026 favoured a host of measures for states and Union Territories (UTs) to prevent hooch tragedies (mass poisoning incidents caused by consuming illegally made or spurious liquor), calling for a coordinated, multi-department approach to curb the illegal manufacture, transportation and sale of spurious liquor.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran struck down provisions of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules that required methanol to be mixed with a specified colourant and bitterant before its sale to non-drug manufacturers to prevent hooch tragedies, holding that the restrictions violated fundamental rights.

Court was hearing writ petitions filed by M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd and others challenging the validity of the amended rules.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the Maharashtra methanol rules?

Court held that Rules 18A and 18B, introduced through a 2011 notification following a major hooch tragedy in 1991 at Chhaya Bar in Mumbai that claimed 93 lives, violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to occupation) of the Constitution.

Under Rule 18A, sellers were required to ascertain the intended use of methanol by verifying the purchaser’s Form A licence. Rule 18B provided for confiscation of methanol found in possession without a valid Form A licence.

The Supreme Court said methanol is a hazardous and toxic substance and agreed that its sale and possession require effective regulation. However, it held that the measures adopted by Maharashtra failed the constitutional tests of reasonableness and proportionality.

The Bench said the state had failed to demonstrate that the impugned measures had a reasonable and proximate nexus with the objective of preventing methanol-related hooch tragedies.

Can complete alcohol prohibition prevent hooch tragedies?

The Supreme Court said experience suggested that “forced temperance” was no solution for alcoholism and observed that a complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated and lethal brews.

The Bench quoted Mark Twain, who famously said, “Evidence has been brought forward which proves that prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places, and does not cure it or even diminish it”.

“There are five evils associated with prohibition,” Court said, pointing to loss of revenue from taxes, expenditure on implementation, corruption in the police and excise departments, illegal distilling and the resultant drug menace.

“History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews,” it said.

Court said adulterating methanol with a bitterant and colourant would not address the craving for liquor. Instead, stricter regulatory measures for transportation and storage should be adopted under excise laws.

“To adulterate methanol with a bitterant and colourant would not quell the craving and to achieve unavailability, there should be stricter regulatory measures for transportation and storage as put forth in the excise laws,” the Bench said.

It added that the existing approach “puts at jeopardy an industry itself” and would result in “missing the woods for the trees”.

What caused earlier hooch tragedies?

The Bench referred to the Parthasarthy Committee, constituted after the 1991 Chhaya Bar hooch tragedy in Mumbai. The committee had identified several causes behind liquor-related deaths, including illegal diversion of methanol, pilferage, confusion between methyl and ethyl alcohol, corruption in enforcement agencies and the availability of methanol as a cheaper alternative to ethyl alcohol.

The Supreme Court also referred to recent hooch tragedies in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, which claimed around 13 and 15 lives, respectively, saying these incidents were again a reminder for authorities to wake up and act.

“The State of Gujarat has a strict prohibition policy. It is a dry State. It has witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since the State’s formation and independence, claiming the lives of over 600 people,” Court said.

It noted that despite Gujarat maintaining a strict prohibition policy since its creation in 1960, hooch tragedies involving methanol-laced liquor had continued to cause severe public health crises.

What measures did the Supreme Court suggest to prevent hooch tragedies?

Court said there was a need to break the chain of supply and demand of liquor through strict implementation of state prohibition laws, where such laws exist.

It also directed that existing rules regulating methanol should be amended to provide that vehicles used for transporting liquor should not be released on bond or surety in case of a breach of any rule until orders are passed by the court.

The Bench further said the state health and family welfare department should have a comprehensive policy and a specialised cell to handle liquor tragedies.

“When there are large scale casualties, public hospitals are in complete chaos in the face of the sudden emergency,” Court said.

“Experiences of the past show that these hospitals are hardly equipped with the necessary specialized medicines or equipment required to handle such emergencies. A comprehensive disaster management system and policy should be in place for handling such emergencies,” it added.

Case Title: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: September 18, 2026