Old Monk to Modify Bottle Labels Following Bombay High Court Decision
The Bombay High Court recently took a firm stance on the labeling practices of ‘Old Monk’ rum, choosing not to impose an interim stay against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) prohibition order. This order effectively halts the sale of Old Monk rum in Maharashtra due to alleged labeling discrepancies and misleading aging claims.
The legal case, Mohan Rocky Springwater Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors., centers around FSSAI’s directives which argue that the addition of artificial flavoring to neutral spirits changes the fundamental nature of the rum. The court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, raised concerns over terms like ‘7 years old blended’ and ‘very old vatted’ used on the product’s packaging, suggesting these terms could mislead consumers into assuming the entire spirit has been aged for seven years.
Acting Chief Justice Ghuge remarked, “You are misleading the public…7 years old means 7 years old!” This comment highlights the court’s focus on consumer clarity and transparency in labeling.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing the producer Mohan Rocky Springwater, contended that the labels comply with statutory guidelines for blended spirits. He argued, “How we wish every citizen of this country was so educated to understand all this!” However, the court was critical of the small print used to disclose added flavorings, with Justice Ghuge humorously noting the difficulty in locating this information, even with a magnifying glass.
Seervai further argued that FSSAI regulations allow for the use of neutral spirits with approved flavoring agents and claimed that Old Monk was being unfairly singled out, despite competitors using similar methods. In contrast, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh asserted that statutory rules require rum’s distinctive taste and aroma to naturally derive from sugarcane fermentation. He argued that when neutral spirits constitute the majority, with rum spirit comprising only 2 to 5 percent, marketing it as pure rum could mislead consumers.
The court declined to offer interim relief from the sales prohibition, stating, “Our prima facie view is that on some counts you are right and on some counts you are at fault. So in this situation, we can’t grant you a final relief.”
In response, the manufacturer agreed to amend its packaging to continue sales in Maharashtra. The company committed to removing the ‘7 years old blended’ claim and ensuring that ‘added flavor’ is prominently displayed on its labels. The High Court has requested the submission of a new, digitally printed draft label for review.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on September 3, offering time for compliance and potential resolution.
