Bombay HC denies interim relief to United Spirits, Mohan Meakin in FSSAI case

MUMBAI: The spirits are still waiting for a legal green light. The Bombay High Court has declined to grant immediate relief to liquor manufacturers including United Spirits and Mohan Meakin, which are challenging prohibitory orders issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the labelling and use of flavouring in certain Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) products.

The companies approached the court after FSSAI’s regulatory action effectively halted the sale of affected products from June. United Spirits, which owns McDowell’s No. 1, and Mohan Meakin, the maker of Old Monk, have sought a stay on the orders.

The dispute centres on products containing artificial or nature-identical rum and whisky flavouring that continue to be sold under conventional product descriptions. FSSAI has raised concerns that such labelling could mislead consumers about the composition of the spirits.

According to Bar and Bench, the liquor manufacturers sought interim relief against the prohibitory orders, arguing that they had been forced to stop selling existing inventory unless the products were relabelled as “rum-flavoured spirits”.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for FSSAI, sought time to file a response before the court considered interim relief.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad declined to pass an interim order at this stage. The court wants FSSAI’s response on record before deciding on the manufacturers’ pleas.

The matter is now scheduled to be heard on August 24.

The manufacturers have argued that the products under scrutiny have been sold for more than five decades under the existing regulatory framework. They maintain that the products comply with applicable rules and that there is no evidence consumers were misled or harmed.

The companies have also highlighted the practical difficulty of changing labels at short notice. Revised labels require approvals from State Excise authorities, making an immediate relabelling exercise difficult.

The dispute is therefore not simply about what is inside the bottle, but also what the label is allowed to say.

FSSAI’s position is that the addition of artificial or nature-identical rum or whisky flavouring can alter the character of a spirit and create a risk of misleading consumers if the product continues to be marketed under a standard category name.

The regulator has indicated that such products should instead be clearly identified as flavoured spirits or spirits containing the relevant flavouring.

The court has indicated that the central issue is one of statutory compliance rather than product quality. The proceedings will therefore examine whether the manufacturers’ products and labels meet the applicable regulatory requirements and whether FSSAI acted within its powers.

The case could have implications well beyond United Spirits and Mohan Meakin, particularly for Indian spirits makers that rely on established blending and flavouring practices.

If FSSAI’s position is upheld, manufacturers may face changes to product classification, labelling and potentially their existing production and distribution processes. For now, however, the prohibitory orders remain in effect.

The Bombay High Court’s August 24 hearing is expected to provide the next indication of whether the affected products can return to shelves while the wider legal dispute continues.