McDowell's & Old Monk vs FSSAI: Can a "Designated Officer" Ban Liquor Sales? Bombay HC's Landmark Test
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsWhen a Food Analyst never once said the rum was "unsafe," could a Designated Officer still ban it overnight? United Spirits and Mohan Meakin say no and the Bombay High Court is now deciding whether FSSAI overreached its statutory powers. Here is what the case really turns on. Title: Rum on Trial — The Limits of FSSAI's Power to Prohibit the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Case Name: M/s United Spirits Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (heard alongside Mohan Meakin Limited v. Union of India & Ors.) Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10196 of 2026 (Bombay High Court) Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate / Writ Jurisdiction) (Note: the reference to the Supreme Court of India in the template does not apply — this matter is pending before the Bombay High Court.) Judges: Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad (at the admission stage; the matter was earlier listed before the Bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla) Judgment Date: Reserved / Pending — listed for hearing on 10 August 2026 (interim stage) Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Bom [to be assigned] (reportable, pending final decision) Abstract This case analysis examines the writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court by United Spirits Limited, the maker of McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum, and Mohan Meakin Limited, the maker of the iconic Old Monk, challenging prohibition orders passed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The dispute is not, at its core, about whether the rum is safe to drink. Instead, it raises a far sharper constitutional and administrative question: does a Designated Officer of FSSAI actually possess the statutory power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of a food product where no finding of a "health-risk condition" has been recorded? The petitioners contend that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ("FSS Act") carves out only two lawful routes to a prohibition order — a judicial route under Section 33 and an administrative route under Section 34 exercised by the Commissioner of Food Safety — and that FSSAI followed neither. The regulator, on the other hand, relies on alleged misleading labelling, substandard composition and unauthorised use of artificial flavouring agents discovered during an inspection at the Baramati manufacturing unit. This analysis situates the controversy within the statutory scheme of the FSS Act and the Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages) Regulations, 2018, evaluates the competing arguments on jurisdiction and proportionality, draws upon the Bombay High Court's own precedent in M/s Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. FSSAI (2022) , and assesses the likely trajectory of the litigation and its wider implications for the Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) industry. Table of Contents Introduction and Factual Background Issues Before the Court The Statutory Framework: Sections 33, 34 and 36 of the FSS Act Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners The Regulator's Position and the Labelling Controversy Relevant Precedents and Their Bearing on the Dispute Analysis: The Real Fault Line — Labelling Defect vs. Health Risk Conclusion and Broader Implications 1. Introduction and Factual Background Few beverages command as much brand loyalty in India as Old Monk and McDowell's No. 1, and it is precisely these household names that now sit at the centre of a significant regulatory showdown. The controversy began when the Designated Officer of FSSAI's Western Regional Office inspected United Spirits' licensed manufacturing unit at Baramati, Pune, and thereafter issued a Prohibition Order dated 29 June 2026 followed by a Conditional Prohibition Order dated 27 July 2026 , effectively halting the manufacture and sale of fresh stocks of McDowell's No. 1 Celebration Matured Rum. Mohan Meakin, the manufacturer of Old Monk, faced comparable action. What makes the enforcement striking is its selectivity: while fresh stocks were frozen, the FSSAI permitted the clearance of already-identified existing stocks — but only after they were relabelled from "Rum" to " Rum Flavoured Spirit ." The companies, unwilling to accept either the ban on fresh production or the practical impossibility of overnight relabelling, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. When the matter was mentioned, the Division Bench made a telling observation that "everything cannot be shut down overnight," while carefully clarifying that the Court "is not an expert" and would not decide the technical merits without hearing both sides. The Bench accordingly directed the Additional Solicitor General to appear on behalf of FSSAI and posted the matter for substantive hearing. The relabelling condition itself lies at the heart of the petitioners' grievance, because affixing new labels is not a mere cosmetic exercise — it requires removal of existing State Excise-approved labels and