The observations came in a judgment delivered on September 18 by a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran while dealing with Maharashtra’s restrictions on methanol.
The court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which regulated the purchase and possession of methanol and required certain additives to be mixed with methanol before it could be sold to non-drug manufacturers.
While examining the issue, the bench discussed the wider question of prohibition and its effectiveness in preventing alcohol-related harm.
Gujarat’s Hooch tragedies cited
The court referred to Gujarat as an example of the challenges faced under a strict prohibition regime.
According to the judgment, Gujarat has had at least 10 major mass hooch tragedies since its formation, with more than 600 people killed. The court noted that the state has maintained prohibition since 1960, yet methanol-laced illicit liquor has continued to cause serious public health crises.
The bench also referred to recent hooch tragedies in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, where around 13 and 15 people respectively died.
Court says illicit trade can move underground
The Supreme Court observed that a complete ban on alcohol can push the liquor trade underground and increase the circulation of unregulated and potentially lethal liquor.
The court said the experience of Gujarat showed that prohibition by itself does not eliminate the demand for alcohol or prevent illicit liquor-related deaths.
The judgment also discussed several challenges associated with prohibition, including the loss of government revenue, enforcement costs, corruption, illegal distillation and the possibility of related drug activity.
Maharashtra methanol rules struck down
The case before the Supreme Court concerned rules introduced to regulate methanol following a major hooch tragedy in Mumbai in 1991.
That incident involved spurious liquor containing methanol and resulted in the deaths of 93 people. The subsequent regulatory framework required methanol sellers to verify buyers and, in specified cases, add colourants and bitterants before sale.
The court held that the restrictions in Rules 18A and 18B were disproportionate and did not effectively address the main sources of methanol diversion, including theft, illegal diversion and misuse.
The judgment noted that simply making methanol unpleasant or identifiable would not by itself prevent its diversion into illegal liquor production.
Supreme Court suggests stronger monitoring
Instead of relying only on restrictions, the court suggested stronger measures to control the supply chain of methanol and illicit liquor.
It called for greater monitoring of transportation and storage, including stricter surveillance at interstate borders to prevent illegal movement of liquor.
The court also highlighted the need to monitor industrial units dealing with chemical solvents because such substances can potentially be diverted to illicit liquor manufacturers.
The judgment further suggested that methanol should be transported in separate tankers or containers to reduce the possibility of theft, substitution or diversion.
Court calls for action against illegal liquor network
The Supreme Court’s observations put the focus on both the supply and demand sides of the illicit liquor trade.
The court said authorities need to identify and disrupt the channels through which methanol and other chemicals reach illegal liquor manufacturers.
