
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which required adding bitterant and colourant to methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers. The court…
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, which required adding bitterant and colourant to methanol before sale to non-drug manufacturers. The court held the rules were manifestly arbitrary and lacked a rational nexus with preventing hooch tragedies, as the additives did not effectively prevent diversion of methanol for illicit liquor.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran instead suggested a coordinated multi-department approach: strict border monitoring by transport departments, police coordination with prohibition and excise departments to identify local breweries, and industries department monitoring of industrial units that manufacture chemical solvents. The court noted that complete alcohol bans often drive the liquor trade underground, citing Gujarat's prohibition policy and at least ten major hooch tragedies there that killed over 600 people.
Coverage across outlets is largely uniform straight reporting. New Indian Express leads with the court's suggested strategy, while LiveLaw and Times of India foreground the court's criticism of prohibition, listing five 'evils' including revenue loss and corruption. All sources report the court striking down the rules as disproportionate. The court's key reasoning, that the additives did not prevent diversion in the unregulated market, is reported consistently. What to watch: the Maharashtra government's next regulatory steps following the quashing of the rules.
Coverage: 4 sources, 4 neutral
Sources (4): newindianexpress.com (neutral report), livelaw.in (neutral report), livelaw.in (2) (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 4 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry.