The Bombay High Court has chosen not to grant immediate relief to prominent liquor manufacturers in a legal battle against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Companies such as United Spirits, owner of McDowell’s No.1, and Mohan Meakin, known for Old Monk, sought legal recourse after FSSAI’s recent orders halted the sale of their Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) due to labeling concerns.
[United Spirits and Anr v. FSSAI & ORs.]
FSSAI had imposed these restrictions alleging the use of misleading labels and unauthorized flavor additions. In response, the liquor companies petitioned the High Court, seeking to overturn these prohibitory measures. Representing FSSAI, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh requested time to draft a formal reply before any court orders were issued.
The manufacturers, represented by senior advocates like Navroz Seervai for Old Monk and Birendra Saraf for McDowell’s, appealed for a stay on the prohibitory orders. They contended that these orders effectively put a stop to the sale of their existing stock unless the products were rebranded as ‘rum-flavored spirits.’ They argued that such changes are impractical given the complex approval process required by the State Excise mechanism.
Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad presided over the case. They decided to wait for FSSAI’s formal response before proceeding with any interim orders. “The learned ASG submits on instructions that an affidavit-in-reply would be served on the petitioners before the matter is listed for hearing. It is in the light of the above statement, that we are refraining from passing any ad-interim orders today,” stated the court.
The FSSAI’s directive, which underpins the dispute, prohibits the sale of liquors that incorporate artificial or nature-identical rum or whisky flavors unless they are clearly labeled as flavored products. FSSAI’s stance is that such additions mislead consumers and compromise the spirit’s natural composition.
More Read
The petitioners argued that their products had been compliant and safely sold for over 50 years. Advocate Navroz Seervai highlighted the financial losses due to the ban, estimating a daily loss of a crore. He added, “For 50 years, it has been sold as rum under the relevant statutory provision; nobody has complained, fallen ill or taken action.” Birendra Saraf echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that consumers have not been misled over the decades.
The court acknowledged the economic implications for the businesses but underscored that the primary issue at hand was statutory compliance. The petitions are scheduled for another hearing on August 24. Saraf was supported by a team of advocates from PLR Chambers, including Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Suhaan Mukerji, Pragati Mishra, and Shubhank Patel.
