Supreme Court Strikes Down Maharashtra's Methanol Rules: Proportionality and Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation
1. The ruling
M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 INSC 1009, Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019 with connected matters, was decided by the Supreme Court on 18 September 2026 (pp. 1 and 35). The Bench comprised J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ., and the judgment was authored by J.B. Pardiwala, J.
In 1991, spurious liquor from the Chhaya Bar in Andheri, Mumbai, turned out to be methanol, and around 93 people died (para 8). One suggestion of the Parthasarthy Committee was later given effect by a 2011 notification (para 9). The notification amended the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, listed methanol as a poison and inserted Rules 18A and 18B (para 10). Rule 18A(1) required a seller to verify that the purchaser held a Form A licence. Rule 18A(2) required one gram of methylene carmine (a colourant) and four grams of denatonium saccharide (a bitterant) to be mixed into every one hundred litres of methanol before sale, except where it was bought for the manufacture of drugs as certified by the local Food and Drugs Administration. Rule 18B provided for confiscation of methanol held without that licence. The Bombay High Court had upheld the rules (para 13).
1.1 Issue and standard of review
The issue was whether Rules 18A and 18B violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) (para 17). The Court began from the settled position that subordinate legislation can be challenged on the same grounds as plenary legislation, including manifest arbitrariness (paras 23-24).
1.2 Rule 18A(1): the Form A licence condition
On Rule 18A(1), the Court explained that a Form A licence is granted only to a person who sells poisons or possesses them for sale, while an industrial purchaser may lawfully buy under a Form B permit (para 28). By insisting on a Form A licence, the rule shut out manufacturers who use methanol as a raw material and rendered the Form B permit nugatory (paras 29-30). It was wider than its object justified and ignored less drastic options such as cancelling licences, stricter renewal conditions and returning unused stock. It was therefore not a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public under Article 19(6) (paras 35-37). The Court accepted that hardship or commercial difficulty alone is no ground to strike down a law, but such action must still be reasonable and proportionate (para 39).
1.3 Rule 18A(2): colourant and bitterant
Rule 18A(2) only helped identify methanol. It did nothing about diversion and pilferage outside the licensed point of sale, and it put a continuing burden on industry (paras 41-48). In the Court's words, "The impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14." (para 51).
1.4 Rule 18B: confiscation
Rule 18B made the Form B permit redundant (para 53).
1.5 Proportionality test
The Court then tested the rules on proportionality. In its words (para 54):
We may now view the aforesaid from one another angle of proportionality analysis prescribed in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India, reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, which seeks answer to the following questions:-
(i) Is the state action in furtherance of a legitimate aim?
(ii) Is the state action suitable for achieving such an aim?
(iii) Is the measure necessary for achieving the aim? and
(iv) Is the measure adequately balanced with the right of the individual?
Applying this test to the facts, the Court held that the impugned rules satisfied the legitimate-aim requirement but failed the remaining three limbs of suitability, necessity and balancing (paras 54-60).
1.6 Result
The petitions were allowed on the footing that the rules violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) (paras 68-69). The Court also made suggestions to all States and Union Territories to prevent hooch tragedies (para 66).
2. Syllabus topic it affects
Paper I, Constitutional Law: Article 14 (manifest arbitrariness) and Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) (reasonable restrictions and proportionality).
Paper I, Administrative Law: delegated legislation and the grounds of judicial review of subordinate legislation.
3. How UPSC could ask it
Likely question: On what grounds can subordinate legislation be challenged? Discuss with reference to the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling on the Maharashtra Poisons Rules. (10 marks)
Likely question: Explain the four-part proportionality test and its application to restrictions on the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g). (10 marks)
Likely question: Can a regulatory measure with a legitimate public-health aim still be struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14? Critically examine. (15 marks)
4. Answer-writing pointers
Key provisions: Article 14; Article 19(1)(g) (the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business); Article 19(6) (reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public); the Poisons Act, 1919, under which Section 2 empowers the State to make rules regulating the possession and sale of poisons and Section 8 gives a further rule-making power (paras 19 and 55); Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 (paras 10 and 22).
Leading cases to link (as cited in the judgment):
State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy (2006) 4 SCC 517: the grounds on which subordinate legislation may be challenged, including manifest arbitrariness (para 23).
Mohd. Faruk v. State of M.P. (1969) 1 SCC 853: a restriction must be necessary, and the object must be incapable of being achieved by a less drastic restriction (para 33).
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: the four-part proportionality analysis of legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and balancing (para 54).
Structure tip: start with the grounds for challenging delegated legislation, test the rules under Article 19(6) and the four proportionality steps, and end with the point that a legitimate aim alone does not save a measure lacking rational nexus.
5. Key concept in the Court's words
Grounds for challenging subordinate legislation (para 23)
It is now well settled by a catena of decisions that validity of a subordinate piece of legislation may be challenged on the following grounds:-
i. There is lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation;
ii. It is ultra vires the fundamental rights or any other Articles of the Constitution;
iii. It is ultra vires the parent Act;
iv. It is contrary to the any other statutory provision;
v. The law-making power has been exercised in bad faith;
vi. It is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable;
vii. It does not fulfill the object and purpose of the parent Act, or exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
[See: State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamoorthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517; Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 569; Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 753.]
Comments