Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 18 September 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1009

Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which restricted methanol purchase to Form A licensees, required a bitterant and colourant before sale and confiscated unlicensed methanol, were held violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

Facts

After about 93 persons died in 1991 from spurious liquor containing methanol at a bar in Andheri, Mumbai, a committee chaired by P.R. Parthasarthy recommended measures. A 2011 notification, issued under the Poisons Act, 1919, declared methanol a poison and inserted Rules 18A and 18B in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972. Rule 18A(1) required a seller to verify that the purchaser held a Form A licence; Rule 18A(2) required methylene carmine and denatonium saccharide to be added before sale to anyone other than drug manufacturers; Rule 18B confiscated methanol possessed without a Form A licence. Industrial users said the additives made their products unusable. The Bombay High Court upheld the rules. Writ petitions and an appeal from that judgment came before the Supreme Court.

Questions before the Court

Whether Rules 18A and 18B, inserted in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 by the 2011 amendment, violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

What the Court held

Rule 18A(1) is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6): it wrongly assumes that verifying a Form A licence reveals the use of methanol, excludes downstream manufacturers and Form B permit holders, and ignores less drastic measures. It violates Article 19(1)(g).
Rule 18A(2), the denaturant mandate, lacks a reasonable and proximate nexus with its object: diversion and pilferage happen outside the regulated point of sale, additives can be masked, and identification is only a possibility, while industries bear a continuing burden.
The impugned rules are manifestly arbitrary and lack rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, violating Article 14.
Rule 18B, confiscating methanol possessed without a Form A licence, is unworkable where a person lawfully holds methanol under a Form B permit and renders that permit redundant.
Applying the Puttaswamy four-part test, the aim is legitimate, but the rules are unsuitable, not shown to be necessary, and their burden is out of proportion to the benefit, violating Article 19(1)(g) of non-drug manufacturers. The rules violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the petitions were allowed.

Why it matters

The judgment applies the arbitrariness test under Article 14 and the four-part proportionality test from Puttaswamy to subordinate legislation regulating a hazardous substance, holding that a legitimate public health aim does not save measures that do not reach the actual mischief. It holds Rules 18A and 18B, as a whole, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); it does not read them down. It also sets out suggestions to all States and Union Territories on preventing hooch tragedies and regulating methanol.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 23 of the judgment

“In such circumstances referred to above, the impugned rules cannot be said to be reasonable or rather a rational application of mind in exercising the law-making power. The impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 24 of the judgment

“As regards adoption of less restrictive measures, the State has failed in showing that no equally effective and less restrictive alternative was available. In our considered view, the check-points or rather the safeguards in the Maharashtra Poison Rules if implemented in letter and spirit would better address the problem of pilferage and diversion.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 26 of the judgment

“A restriction can be said to be reasonable when it is not excessive in nature, more particularly, when it does not go beyond what is required in the public interest, is born out of care and deliberation of relevant factors, and strikes a balance between the rights guaranteed and societal interests.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 18 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Rule 18A, Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972
Rule 18B, Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972
Article 14, Constitution
Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6), Constitution
Sections 2 and 8, Poisons Act, 1919

Related judgments

Follows Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)“We may now view the aforesaid from one another angle of proportionality analysis prescribed in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India” (page 25)

Case and bench

Parties: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case: Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019, with Writ Petition (C) No. 1059 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 13008 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16236 of 2019)
Decided: 18 September 2026
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Questions on this case

From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: September 2026
In Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (18 September 2026), while testing the confiscation provision in Rule 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, the Supreme Court applied the four-part proportionality test (legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and balancing) drawn from:
1. A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
2. B. State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952)
3. C. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
4. D. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Show the answer
D. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Para 54 of 2026 INSC 1009 applies the four-part proportionality test from K.S. Puttaswamy and finds Rule 18B disproportionate under Article 19(1)(g). V.G. Row is known for the reasonableness standard, not this four-part test.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: September 2026
In M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (18 September 2026), the Supreme Court held which of the following violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
1. A. Rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the labelling and sale of formalin solutions
2. B. Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, regulating the sale and possession of methanol
3. C. A Union order under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 capping stocks of industrial methanol
4. D. Sections of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 banning the sale of denatured spirit to industrial units
Show the answer
B. Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, regulating the sale and possession of methanol
The Court (2026 INSC 1009, Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran, JJ.) examined Rules 18A and 18B inserted in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 by a 2011 notification, requiring Form A licence checks, mixing of colourant and bitterant, and confiscation of methanol held without a licence. It held them violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) while accepting that methanol may be regulated.

Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 18 September 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1009

Facts

Questions before the Court

Whether Rules 18A and 18B, inserted in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 by the 2011 amendment, violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

What the Court held

Rule 18A(1) is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6): it wrongly assumes that verifying a Form A licence reveals the use of methanol, excludes downstream manufacturers and Form B permit holders, and ignores less drastic measures. It violates Article 19(1)(g).
Rule 18A(2), the denaturant mandate, lacks a reasonable and proximate nexus with its object: diversion and pilferage happen outside the regulated point of sale, additives can be masked, and identification is only a possibility, while industries bear a continuing burden.
The impugned rules are manifestly arbitrary and lack rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, violating Article 14.
Rule 18B, confiscating methanol possessed without a Form A licence, is unworkable where a person lawfully holds methanol under a Form B permit and renders that permit redundant.
Applying the Puttaswamy four-part test, the aim is legitimate, but the rules are unsuitable, not shown to be necessary, and their burden is out of proportion to the benefit, violating Article 19(1)(g) of non-drug manufacturers. The rules violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); the petitions were allowed.

Why it matters

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“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.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 23 of the judgment

“In such circumstances referred to above, the impugned rules cannot be said to be reasonable or rather a rational application of mind in exercising the law-making power. The impugned notification is manifestly arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, thereby violating Article 14.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 24 of the judgment

“As regards adoption of less restrictive measures, the State has failed in showing that no equally effective and less restrictive alternative was available. In our considered view, the check-points or rather the safeguards in the Maharashtra Poison Rules if implemented in letter and spirit would better address the problem of pilferage and diversion.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 26 of the judgment

“A restriction can be said to be reasonable when it is not excessive in nature, more particularly, when it does not go beyond what is required in the public interest, is born out of care and deliberation of relevant factors, and strikes a balance between the rights guaranteed and societal interests.”

J.B. Pardiwala, J.Page 18 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Rule 18A, Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972
Rule 18B, Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972
Article 14, Constitution
Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6), Constitution
Sections 2 and 8, Poisons Act, 1919

Related judgments

Follows Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)“We may now view the aforesaid from one another angle of proportionality analysis prescribed in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India” (page 25)

Case and bench

Parties: M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Case: Writ Petition (C) No. 893 of 2019, with Writ Petition (C) No. 1059 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 13008 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16236 of 2019)
Decided: 18 September 2026
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, K. Vinod Chandran
Opinions: Unanimous. Judgment delivered by J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Questions on this case

From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: September 2026
In Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (18 September 2026), while testing the confiscation provision in Rule 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, the Supreme Court applied the four-part proportionality test (legitimate aim, suitability, necessity and balancing) drawn from:
1. A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
2. B. State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952)
3. C. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
4. D. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Show the answer
D. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Para 54 of 2026 INSC 1009 applies the four-part proportionality test from K.S. Puttaswamy and finds Rule 18B disproportionate under Article 19(1)(g). V.G. Row is known for the reasonableness standard, not this four-part test.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: September 2026
In M/s Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (18 September 2026), the Supreme Court held which of the following violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
1. A. Rules under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the labelling and sale of formalin solutions
2. B. Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, regulating the sale and possession of methanol
3. C. A Union order under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 capping stocks of industrial methanol
4. D. Sections of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 banning the sale of denatured spirit to industrial units
Show the answer
B. Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, regulating the sale and possession of methanol
The Court (2026 INSC 1009, Pardiwala and Vinod Chandran, JJ.) examined Rules 18A and 18B inserted in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 by a 2011 notification, requiring Form A licence checks, mixing of colourant and bitterant, and confiscation of methanol held without a licence. It held them violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) while accepting that methanol may be regulated.