- The Bombay High Court will examine on August 10 a plea by various liquor manufacturers challenging prohibitory orders passed against them by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
- Companies including United Spirits and Mohan Meakin, which own liquor brands like McDowell’s No.1 and Old Monk respectively, approached the High Court after FSSAI took regulatory action which effectively halted the sale of their Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) since June.
- On Friday, a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad acknowledged that industry-wide shutdown overnight posed significant challenges.
- The bench deemed it fit to let the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh appear with instructions from FSSAI, as any decision would have wide-reaching impact on manufacturers, distributors, and consumers.
- The FSSAI took action citing misleading labelling and unauthorized flavour additions, which led to the prohibition of sales of popular liquor products that add external rum or whisky flavours.
- The Bombay High Court scheduled a hearing for August 10 to decide on the resumption of sale of IMFL products.
- Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, representing United Spirits, argued that the regulator’s abrupt prohibition orders threatened to bring a significant portion of the domestic spirits industry to a complete standstill.
- Saraf highlighted that the traditional process for IMFL rum involves blending a matured rum concentrate with neutral spirit, where additional flavour is added to round out the taste profile.
- The FSSAI maintained that under existing regulations, age claims must accurately represent the youngest spirit in the blend, and flagged labelling descriptions such as ‘matured in cask’ on bottles where neutral unmatured spirit forms the primary component.
- During proceedings, the Court questioned the feasibility of adopting modified labelling to address the regulator's concerns, but Saraf responded that relabelling could not be executed overnight due to state-level regulatory approvals.
- The FSSAI also reiterated its position that there is no recognised international practice where external rum flavour is added to standard rum or whisky flavour to mimic ageing, contending such a practice is misleading.
The Bombay High Court is set to hear a plea on August 10 from United Spirits and Mohan Meakin, challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) prohibition on their Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) sales. The FSSAI's action, which halted production since June, was based on claims of misleading labeling and unauthorized flavoring.12567101113
The FSSAI cited that incorporating artificial flavors masks a spirit's natural composition, making it misleading unless labeled correctly. Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, representing United Spirits, argued that the prohibition threatens to shut down 30% of the IMFL industry, which has been operational for over five decades. He emphasized that the abrupt nature of the prohibition poses significant challenges for manufacturers.8
Saraf pointed out that the traditional process for IMFL rum involves blending matured rum concentrate with neutral spirit, a practice used for around 50 years. He stated, “The action taken by FSSAI has effectively shut down 30% of the Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) industry.”
In response, FSSAI counsel Sangeeta Yadav maintained that the prohibition aims to enforce proper labeling standards to prevent consumer deception, stating, “We have no objection but use the labels correctly.” The court acknowledged the wide-reaching impact of the prohibition and has called for the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to appear on behalf of the FSSAI during the hearing.
The petition challenges the validity of the prohibition orders issued after inspections found misleading labeling and substandard compositions, with the manufacturers arguing that the FSSAI's actions lack a basis for such prohibitions.
“The FSSAI's prohibition, which halted sale of IMFL since June, has effectively shut down 30% of the industry, according to senior advocate Birendra Saraf. The court questioned relabelling feasibility, noting state excise approvals are required for label changes.”
Live Law
