Mumbai, August 10, 2026: The Bombay High Court on Monday questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its prohibition orders against popular liquor brands McDowell’s No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum and Old Monk, observing that the dispute appeared to be more about labelling than the quality or safety of the products.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad was hearing petitions filed by liquor manufacturers United Spirits Ltd and Mohan Meakin Ltd challenging the orders issued by FSSAI following inspections of their manufacturing units.
Manufacturers Cite Lack Of Hearing
Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for United Spirits, said the company had not been given a proper hearing before the prohibition order was issued. He submitted that the product had been manufactured using the same process for several years and there had been no complaints about its quality or any harm caused to consumers.
"It is nobody’s case that this rum has caused any harm," Saraf said.
The bench questioned whether regulatory action could be triggered merely because a consumer raised a complaint about the quality of liquor.
Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Mohan Meakin, said he could demonstrate from the record that the company’s product was compliant with the prescribed standards. "I can show on record that my product is 100 per cent compliant. Somebody had got it in his head that this is not a rum," he submitted.
Seervai pointed out that the product had been sold for several years without any complaints. "For so many years nobody has complained," he said.
Labelling Dispute Takes Centre Stage
The petitioners said FSSAI had allowed existing stocks to be sold after relabelling them as "Rum Flavoured Spirit", while prohibiting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks. Saraf argued that changing the labels could not be done immediately as liquor labels require approval from the State Excise Department.
FSSAI’s counsel submitted that the regulator’s concern was to ensure proper labelling. FSSAI has alleged that the products contain unauthorised artificial or nature-identical flavouring agents and that their labelling could mislead consumers.
The manufacturers, however, contended that the Food Analyst had not found the products unsafe or harmful to consumers, nor held that they failed to meet prescribed standards for rum.
Also Watch:
Court Seeks Government Reply
The bench also questioned how consumers would know the nature of the product and observed, "Issue is not on quality. Issue is on labelling."
The petitioners have also challenged the authority of the FSSAI officer to issue the prohibition orders, arguing that Section 36(3)(b) of the Food Safety and Standards Act does not independently empower the officer to prohibit manufacture and sale.
The court directed the Union government to file its reply by August 19 and posted the petitions for hearing on August 24.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
