Supreme Court strikes down Maharashtra's methanol rules, calls prohibition no solution
Dry Gujarat still sees hooch deaths. Does banning alcohol, or dyeing methanol, actually save lives?
Published 20 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu reported on 20 September 2026 that a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala has struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, holding that they violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business). Rule 18A allowed methanol to be sold only to holders of a 'Form A' licence and required sellers to mix a colourant (methylene carmine) and a bitterant (denatonium saccharide) into methanol before selling it to anyone other than drug manufacturers. Rule 18B allowed unlicensed methanol to be confiscated. Methanol is a toxic industrial alcohol: when it is passed off as drinkable liquor it can cause blindness, organ failure and death. The rules were Maharashtra's response to the 1991 hooch tragedy in Mumbai.
Applying the proportionality test, the Court accepted that preventing hooch deaths is a legitimate aim but found the rules neither suitable nor necessary: dyeing methanol does not touch the real causes, which are pilferage and corruption, while it burdens lawful users such as paint makers. The Court observed that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism'. It pointed to Gujarat, a dry State since 1960 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, where more than 10 major hooch tragedies have killed over 600 people, and to recent tragedies in Bhavnagar (Gujarat) and Sagar (Madhya Pradesh) that killed 13 and 15 people. It listed 'five evils' of prohibition: loss of tax revenue, high enforcement costs, corruption in the police and excise departments, illegal distilling, and a rise in the drug menace.
Instead, the Bench asked authorities to break illicit liquor supply chains, tighten vigilance at inter-State borders, watch for chemical solvents being diverted to unlicensed producers, and move methanol only in dedicated tankers to prevent pilferage. The constitutional frame is layered. Article 47, a Directive Principle, asks the State to 'endeavour to bring about prohibition' of intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes, but Directive Principles cannot be enforced in court (Article 37). Intoxicating liquor is a State subject (Entry 8 of List II), so policy varies: Gujarat, Bihar (since April 2016), Nagaland (since 1989) and Mizoram (reimposed in 2019) prohibit liquor. Supporters of prohibition cite Article 47 and harm to families; the Court's observations side with critics who say bans push the trade underground. The ruling itself strikes down only the Maharashtra methanol rules, not any State's prohibition law.
Prelims facts
- The Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- Rule 18A required a colourant (methylene carmine) and a bitterant (denatonium saccharide) to be mixed into methanol sold to buyers other than drug manufacturers.
- The Court observed that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism', citing more than 600 deaths in over 10 major hooch tragedies in dry Gujarat since 1960.
- Article 47, a Directive Principle, asks the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes; it is not enforceable in court.
- Intoxicating liquor falls in Entry 8 of the State List, which is why prohibition differs from State to State.
Quick recall
- Which rules did the Supreme Court strike down in September 2026?
- Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.
- Which Articles did the struck-down rules violate?
- Article 14 (equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade and business).
- What did Rule 18A require sellers to add to methanol?
- A colourant, methylene carmine, and a bitterant, denatonium saccharide.
- Which Article asks the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition?
- Article 47, a Directive Principle of State Policy.
- Where are intoxicating liquors placed in the Seventh Schedule?
- Entry 8 of List II (State List).
- Under which law has Gujarat enforced prohibition since 1960?
- The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
- What are the 'five evils' of prohibition the Court listed?
- Loss of tax revenue, high enforcement costs, police and excise corruption, illegal distilling and a rise in the drug menace.
- Since when has Bihar had total prohibition?
- April 2016.
Prelims practice question
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. Article 47 directs the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks, except for medicinal purposes.
2. Intoxicating liquors are a subject in the Union List of the Seventh Schedule.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (a) 1 only. Statement 1 is correct: Article 47 (a Directive Principle) asks the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and injurious drugs, except for medicinal purposes. Statement 2 is incorrect: intoxicating liquors are in Entry 8 of List II (State List), which is why each State sets its own liquor policy.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Directive Principles versus Fundamental Rights, and the tests courts use to judge State restrictions
- How to use this
Use as a recent example of the Supreme Court applying the proportionality test to define the scope of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- In September 2026 a Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
- Applying proportionality, the Court accepted preventing hooch deaths as a legitimate aim but found dyeing methanol neither suitable nor necessary, since the real causes are pilferage and corruption.
- The rules burdened lawful users such as paint makers; note that curbs on lawful trade must pass the proportionality test under Article 19(1)(g) and cannot be arbitrary.
The methanol rules were struck down as manifestly arbitrary under Article 14, the same principle behind this question on unguided discretionary power.
Mains practice question
"Forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism." In the light of the Supreme Court's recent observation, examine whether prohibition is the right way to give effect to Article 47 of the Constitution. (250 words)
Model answer
Article 47 asks the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks. Striking down Maharashtra's methanol rules in September 2026, the Supreme Court observed that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism'.
The case for prohibition
- Constitutional mandate: Article 47 links prohibition to public health and nutrition.
- Social harm: alcohol abuse drives domestic violence and household debt; women's groups have often led demands for bans.
- State competence: liquor is in Entry 8 of List II, so States such as Gujarat, Bihar, Nagaland and Mizoram have chosen bans.
The case against
- Hooch deaths continue: Gujarat, dry since 1960, has had more than 10 major hooch tragedies with over 600 deaths, the Court noted.
- 'Five evils': lost tax revenue, high enforcement costs, police and excise corruption, illegal distilling and a rise in drug use.
- Rights and proportionality: blunt curbs on lawful trade must pass the proportionality test under Article 19(1)(g) and cannot be arbitrary under Article 14.
A better route to Article 47
- Supply-chain control: track methanol, move it in dedicated tankers and check diversion of solvents, as the Court directed.
- Enforcement against bootleggers: inter-State border vigilance and action against collusion.
- Public health approach: de-addiction services, awareness and regulated, taxed sale.
- Local choice: community-led restrictions rather than blanket State-wide bans.
Article 47 is best served by reducing harm from alcohol, which regulation and public health can achieve better than a ban that drives the trade underground.
The basics
Why this matters
The Constitution asks the State to work towards prohibition, yet the Supreme Court has now said that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism'. The case was about a narrow set of rules on methanol in Maharashtra, but the Court's reasoning touches three things UPSC tests often: how Article 47 and prohibition works as a Directive Principle, how courts judge limits on trade under Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions, and the Proportionality test.
What the rules did
Methanol is an industrial alcohol used in paints and solvents. It resembles the ethanol in drinks, so bootleggers mix it into cheap liquor. After the 1991 hooch tragedy in Mumbai, Maharashtra's rules tried to make methanol impossible to pass off as liquor.
- 1LicenceMethanol could be sold only to holders of a 'Form A' licence
- 2ColourantMethylene carmine to be mixed in before sale to non-drug makers
- 3BitterantDenatonium saccharide to make it undrinkable
- 4ConfiscationRule 18B allowed unlicensed methanol to be seized
Why the Court struck them down
The Court accepted that stopping hooch deaths is a legitimate aim. But a restriction on a fundamental right must also be suitable and necessary. Dyeing methanol does not stop pilferage from tankers or collusion by officials, which is how methanol actually reaches bootleggers, while it adds cost for honest users such as paint makers. So the rules failed the test and were held arbitrary under Article 14 and an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).
- 1Legitimate aimPreventing deaths from spurious liquor: accepted
- 2SuitabilityDoes dyeing methanol stop diversion? The Court found it does not reach the root cause
- 3NecessityLess burdensome tools exist, such as tracking supply and dedicated tankers
- 4BalancingCosts on lawful trade outweighed the small gain: rules struck down
The prohibition paradox
The Court went further and looked at prohibition itself. Gujarat has been dry since it was formed in 1960, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Yet the Court noted more than 10 major hooch tragedies there with over 600 deaths. A ban removes the legal, tested product, so drinkers turn to unregulated brews where Methanol and hooch tragedies become likely.
- Total ban on sale and consumption
- Loses excise revenue
- Needs heavy policing and invites corruption
- Pushes trade to illegal distilling
- Licensed, taxed and tested supply
- Tracks industrial alcohol like methanol
- Funds de-addiction and awareness
- Keeps drinkers away from toxic brews
The takeaway
Article 47 sets a goal, not a method. The method must work in practice and respect rights: control the supply of dangerous chemicals and act against bootleggers.
Go deeper
In one line: The Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra's rules requiring methanol to be dyed and made bitter, and observed that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism'.
Why it matters for UPSC
The case joins three favourite themes: Directive Principles and their limits, the test for restrictions on the freedom of trade, and the proportionality doctrine. It also gives a ready Mains argument on prohibition as public policy.
The core idea
Maharashtra tried to stop hooch deaths by making industrial methanol look and taste undrinkable. The Court asked whether this actually worked and whether it was the least burdensome option. Using the Proportionality test, it found the rules neither suitable nor necessary, since pilferage and corruption, not the colour of methanol, feed the illicit trade. That made them arbitrary under Article 14 and an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions. The Court then questioned the premise behind Article 47 and prohibition, citing dry Gujarat's record of Methanol and hooch tragedies.
Numbers and dates to remember
- Rules struck down: 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972.
- Gujarat dry since 1960 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949: over 10 major hooch tragedies, 600+ deaths.
- Recent tragedies cited: Bhavnagar (13 deaths) and Sagar (15 deaths).
- Bihar prohibition since April 2016; Nagaland since 1989; Mizoram reimposed in 2019.
- Liquor: Entry 8, List II.
Where to go next
- Article 47 and prohibition: the constitutional goal and why it is not enforceable.
- Proportionality test: the four-step test the Court applied.
- Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions: how far the State can restrict trade.
- Methanol and hooch tragedies: the chemistry and the supply chain behind mass poisonings.
Go deeper: can a ban ever be the right tool?
For prohibition. Article 47 and prohibition ties prohibition to public health. Alcohol harms households, and many local movements against liquor have been led by women. Courts have also held that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor meant for drinking: in Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka (1995) the Supreme Court treated such trade as one the State may restrict or prohibit. So a State ban on potable liquor is constitutionally safe.
Against prohibition. The Court's 'five evils' (lost revenue, enforcement costs, corruption, illegal distilling, drug use) describe how bans play out. Gujarat's record of Methanol and hooch tragedies suggests that removing legal liquor drives drinkers to toxic brews.
Why methanol was different. Methanol is an industrial chemical, not a drink, so trade in it is protected by Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions. Limits on it must pass the Proportionality test: legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and balance. The rules failed at suitability and necessity, because tankers and dealers, not the liquid's colour, are where diversion happens.
The policy lesson. The Court's directions (dedicated tankers, border vigilance, watching solvent diversion) point to supply-chain control. A balanced answer: pursue Article 47 through regulation, taxation, de-addiction and targeted enforcement, keeping bans as a local choice rather than a blanket rule.
Article 47 and prohibition
The constitutional goal behind every liquor ban, and its limits.
In one line: Article 47 asks the State to raise nutrition and public health and to endeavour to bring about prohibition of intoxicating drinks and harmful drugs, except for medicinal purposes.
What it says
Article 47 is in Part IV of the Constitution, the Directive Principles of State Policy. It treats raising the level of nutrition, the standard of living and public health as among the State's primary duties, and in particular asks it to endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks and of drugs injurious to health.
Why it is not binding
Article 37 says Directive Principles are not enforceable by any court, though they are fundamental in governance. So no one can go to court to force a State to adopt prohibition. Because liquor is in Entry 8 of the State List, each State decides: Gujarat, Bihar, Nagaland and Mizoram have chosen bans, while most States regulate and tax liquor.
Why it is in the news
The Supreme Court's remark that 'forced temperance is not a solution to alcoholism' questions whether bans are the best way to meet Article 47's goal.
Where to go next
Proportionality test
The four-step test courts use to judge limits on rights.
In one line: The proportionality test asks whether a limit on a fundamental right has a proper aim, actually serves it, is the least restrictive option and is balanced against the harm it causes.
The four steps
- Legitimate aim: the measure must pursue a proper purpose.
- Suitability: it must be rationally connected to that purpose.
- Necessity: no less restrictive measure should achieve the aim equally well.
- Balancing: the gain must outweigh the harm to the right.
Where it comes from
Indian courts adopted the test in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), and the nine-judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the privacy case, made it central to judging restrictions on rights.
Why it is in the news
In the methanol case the Court accepted the aim of preventing hooch deaths but found that dyeing methanol failed the suitability and necessity steps.
Where to go next
Article 19(1)(g) and reasonable restrictions
How far the State can restrict a lawful trade.
In one line: Article 19(1)(g) gives every citizen the right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
What the State may do
Article 19(6) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public, to prescribe professional or technical qualifications, and to carry on a trade itself to the exclusion of citizens. The word 'reasonable' is judged by the courts, today largely through the proportionality test.
Liquor versus methanol
The Supreme Court has held that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor meant for drinking, for example in Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka (1995). Methanol is different: it is a lawful industrial chemical, so restrictions on its trade must satisfy Article 19(6).
Why it is in the news
The Court held that Maharashtra's dyeing and licensing rules placed an unreasonable burden on legitimate users of methanol, such as paint makers.
Where to go next
Methanol and hooch tragedies
The chemistry and supply chain behind mass liquor poisonings.
In one line: Hooch tragedies happen when methanol, a cheap industrial alcohol, is mixed into illicit liquor and drunk in quantity.
Why methanol kills
Drinkable alcohol is ethanol. Methanol looks and smells similar but the body converts it into toxic compounds that can cause blindness, organ failure and death. Because it is cheap and widely used in paints, solvents and chemicals, bootleggers can obtain it by diversion from tankers or dealers.
The supply chain problem
The Supreme Court's directions target this chain: break illicit supply networks, tighten vigilance at inter-State borders, watch for solvents diverted to unlicensed producers, and move methanol only in dedicated tankers to stop pilferage.
Why it is in the news
The Court cited more than 10 major hooch tragedies with over 600 deaths in dry Gujarat, and recent deaths in Bhavnagar (13) and Sagar (15), to argue that prohibition does not stop methanol poisoning.
Where to go next
Take the 20 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers