New Delhi [India], September 18 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday observed that Gujarat’s decades-long prohibition regime has failed to prevent repeated mass hooch tragedies involving methanol-laced illicit liquor, with more than 600 deaths reported in at least 10 major incidents.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while striking down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which regulated the purchase and possession of methanol and required colourant and bitterant to be added to it before sale to non-drug manufacturers.
The apex court in its judgement said Gujarat’s experience showed that a complete ban on alcohol could drive the illicit liquor trade underground, increasing the risk of unregulated and lethal brews.
“History bears eloquent testimony to the fact that a complete alcohol ban often drives the liquor trade underground, increasing the prevalence of unregulated, lethal brews. Take the case of the State of Gujarat. The State of Gujarat has a strict prohibition policy. It is a dry State. The State of Gujarat has witnessed at least ten major mass hooch tragedies since the State's formation and independence, claiming the lives of over 600 people. Despite the State of Gujarat maintaining a strict prohibition policy since its creation in 1960, hooch tragedies (laththa laced with methanol) has rapidly led to severe public health crises”, the apex court said.
The bench cited Gujarat’s experience to illustrate the link between prohibition and recurring hooch tragedies.
Referring to recent hooch tragedies in Bhavnagar and Sagar, where around 13 and 15 people respectively died, the bench said such incidents should prompt authorities to “wake up and act”.
The top court was examining Maharashtra’s methanol safeguards introduced after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, which claimed around 93 lives. It noted that diversion and pilferage of methanol through illegal channels were among the key factors identified by a committee constituted after the tragedy.
The bench held that merely requiring methanol to be denatured with colourant and bitterant could not prevent diversion occurring outside the regulated supply chain.
The apex court observed that mere hardship, financial burden or commercial inconvenience caused by a law cannot, by itself, render it unconstitutional. However, State measures must satisfy the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality. In the present case, the Court held that the requirement under Rule 18A(2) to add bitterant and colourant to methanol failed these tests, as it lacked a proximate nexus with the stated objective on two grounds.
“We are conscious of the fact that some hardship or inconvenience that may be caused to a section of society cannot by itself be a ground to strike down a legislation. If a rule otherwise appears to be fair, just and reasonable, and does not suffer from the vice of any constitutional guarantee, mere fact that some hardship, financial burden, or commercial difficulty is caused is no ground to declare the State action unconstitutional. However, such actions must be reasonable and proportionate. In the present case, the aforesaid requirement of addition of bitterant and colourant in methanol prescribed under Rule 18A(2) fails the test of being reasonable and having a proximate nexus to the object on two counts,” the verdict states.
It suggested tighter safeguards, including verification of licence holders, monitoring methanol consumption, stock reconciliation, return of unused methanol, stricter transport and storage controls, dedicated tankers and tamper-evident seals.
While recognising prevention of methanol-related deaths as a legitimate public-health objective, the Court held that Rules 18A and 18B are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The top court allowed the writ petitions filed by methanol-based product manufacturers, challenging the mandatory addition of additives to methanol, which they contended affected the quality and usability of their products. (ANI)
Gujarat’s hooch tragedies show prohibition alone cannot prevent illicit liquor: SC
