Bombay High Court asks FSSAI to reply by August 24 in Old Monk, McDowell's case

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time until August 24 to file its response to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Rum. The petitions challenge prohibition orders issued against the sale of these products.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Varma and Justice Surya Kant dismissed an application by the Union of India, which had claimed that the food products contained artificial flavours. The court observed that no evidence was provided to support the claim of adulteration.

United Spirits Limited (USL), which manufactures McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, and Mohan Meakin Limited, which produces Old Monk, have both been fined and faced prohibitory action by the FSSAI's Western Regional Office. The orders followed inspections that allegedly found misleading labelling, substandard composition, and use of artificial flavouring agents.

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Mohan Meakin, submitted that Old Monk has been in the market for nearly five decades without any complaint about quality or any reported illness. He told the court that the company is incurring losses of crores of rupees each day because of the prohibition orders.

The petition by USL challenges a prohibition order dated June 29 and a conditional prohibition order dated July 12, both issued by the Designated Officer of the FSSAI's Western Regional Office. These orders prohibited the manufacturing and sale of McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Rum from USL's licensed unit in Baramati, Pune. The conditional order permits the company to clear existing identified stocks subject to relabelling conditions, but the prohibition on the sale of fresh stocks remains.

The petitioners argue that the Food Analyst's finding on the product's label has not recorded that the product is unsafe for human consumption, fails to meet compositional standards for rum, or poses a risk to public health. They also claim that the product meets the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018, and that no violation of compositional standards has been recorded.

In addition, the petitions state that the basis of the orders does not indicate non-compliance with the product standard that would justify prohibition. They refer to Section 36(3)(b) of the FSS Act, which lists the functions of a Designated Officer, and note that the Act does not provide a specific mechanism for issuing prohibition orders except under Section 33 (by a competent court) and Section 34 (by the Commissioner of Food Safety in health-risk cases). The petitions contend that neither of these routes was followed.

The petitions also point out that while the conditional prohibition order permits sale of existing stocks after label modification through stickers, it does not contain a specific provision for such a procedure. This has resulted in ambiguity over how the order can be complied with.

On behalf of the FSSAI, the Additional Solicitor General sought time to respond. The FSSAI had earlier argued that relabelling of products cannot be done immediately, as it requires removal of existing labels and approval of new labels from the State Excise Department. The court granted the time sought and adjourned the hearing until August 24.

The case is part of a wider FSSAI crackdown on violations of flavouring norms in alcoholic beverages. The regulator has named several companies, including USL and Inbrew, in its scrutiny of artificial flavouring agents.