Supreme Court questions alcohol ban, cites revenue loss and illicit liquor risks

In a Friday hearing, the Supreme Court nullified Maharashtra's Rules 18A and 18B, which required bitterant and colourant to be added to methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers. Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran argued that the state's prohibition strategy is ineffective and creates five distinct problems: loss of tax revenue, high enforcement expenses, police corruption, growth of illegal distilling, and a surge in drug use.

The bench referenced recent mass poisoning incidents in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, and Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, which together claimed 28 lives, to illustrate the dangers of underground liquor markets. While granting relief to chemical firms including the Indian Chemical Council, the court noted the state failed to demonstrate how the additives would deter methanol misuse or prevent future tragedies. The ruling underscores the broader debate over India's alcohol prohibition policies.