Why Did the Supreme Court Reject Maharashtra's Methanol Rules?
The Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra's methanol rules requiring manufacturers to add denaturants and bitterants to discourage illicit consumption, holding the measures disproportionate and lacking sufficient connection to public health goals. The Court ruled that the rules violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing excessive burdens on legitimate industrial users without effectively preventing illicit liquor tragedies. The judgment emphasized the importance of proportionality in state regulations affecting trade and commerce.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra's methanol rules for being disproportionate and unconstitutional.
- The rules mandated adding denaturants and bitterants to methanol to prevent its misuse in illicit liquor production.
- The Court held that the regulations violated Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade).
- The judgment reinforced the application of the proportionality test in evaluating state restrictions on fundamental rights.
Exam Facts
- The case involved challenges to amendments made to the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.
- The proportionality framework was cited from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment.
- The Supreme Court bench included Justices A.K. Bindasa and K. Vinod Chandran.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.