The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Maharashtra's 2011 amendments to the Poisons Rules were arbitrary and placed an unreasonable burden on legitimate industries.
- These rules mandated the addition of additives to methanol for non-drug manufacturers to prevent its use in illicit liquor, but the court found this measure failed to address the actual source of the problem.
- Consequently, the court held the rules violated constitutional protections regarding equality and the right to conduct business.
What to watch next
- Future amendments to the Maharashtra Poisons Rules to align with Supreme Court guidelines.
- Implementation of inter-departmental cooperation strategies to monitor illegal liquor production.
- Impact on the industrial operations and chemical supply chain for methanol users in India.
Who said what1
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Supreme Court of India
1 quote · 1 outlet
“What is discernable from the above is that in practicality, the impugned rules prescribe a regulatory framework that does not prevent the misuse of methanol in liquor which takes place in the unregulated field. The sub-rule even in the best case of full compliance cannot prevent the misuse it aims to prevent. Thus, it cannot be said to bear a reasonable and proximate nexus with the object it seeks to achieve. It addresses a mischief, it does not in fact remedy while imposing a continuous burden on the industries”
In the article
…methanol in illicit liquor. The State had failed to demonstrate that the additives would prevent diversion or manufacture of spurious liquor, while the requirement imposed continuing burdens on legitimate industries. “ What is discernable from the above is that in practicality, the impugned rules prescribe a regulatory framework that does not prevent the misuse of methanol in liquor which takes place in the unregulated field. The sub-rule even in the best case of full compliance cannot prevent the misuse it aims to prevent. Thus, it cannot be said to bear a reasonable and proximate nexus with the object it seeks to achieve. It addresses a mischief, it does not in fact remedy while imposing a continuous burden on the industries ,” observed the court. As for Rule 18B, which provided for confiscation of methanol possessed without a Form A licence, the court found that it could conflict with the lawful possession of methanol under a Form B permit…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Government of Maharashtra · JB Pardiwala · K. Vinod Chandran · P.R. Parthasarthy · Supreme Court of India
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.