Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To United Spirits, Mohan Meakin In FSSAI Labelling Dispute

The Bombay High Court has declined to grant immediate ad-interim relief to major liquor manufacturers, including United Spirits and Mohan Meakin, in their joint legal challenge against prohibitory orders issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

This dispute focuses on regulatory directives passed by the FSSAI that restrict the sale of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) items containing artificial or nature-identical rum or whisky flavouring when being sold under standard product names.

According to the food safety regulator, adding external flavouring alters the natural composition of spirits and creates a risk of misleading consumers unless the bottles are clearly re-labelled as flavoured spirits or spirits with added flavouring.

The regulatory enforcement effectively halted the distribution and sale of several long-established spirit brands, including McDowell's No. 1 and Old Monk, starting in June.

In their petition to the court, the liquor manufacturers sought an immediate stay on the ban, citing significant daily financial losses and the practical impossibility of altering existing packaging overnight due to lengthy approval procedures with state excise authorities.

Representing the FSSAI, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh requested time to submit a formal counter-affidavit before the court considered granting any temporary stay.

A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad agreed to defer passing any ad-interim orders until the regulator's official written response is placed on record.

"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, expecting that the respondent Union of India will ensure that the copy of the affidavits-in-reply is served upon the petitioners," the court said, according to Bar and Bench.

Legal representatives for the manufacturers argued that the affected products have been safely and lawfully marketed under the prevailing regulatory regime for over 50 years without causing public confusion or health issues.

"I am losing a crore a day; the revenue (department) is losing money. This is just some bee in the bonnet of two people who have got an ego trip all over India. For 50 years, it has been sold as rum under the relevant statutory provision; nobody has complained, fallen ill or taken action," Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Mohan Meakin, said.

The bench observed that the primary issue before the court is one of statutory compliance and regulatory authorisation rather than product quality or safety.

The Bombay High Court has directed the Union of India and the FSSAI to serve copies of their affidavits-in-reply to the petitioners before the next hearing, which is scheduled for Aug. 24.