Will Old Monk, McDowell be back? Bombay HC grants FSSAI time til August 24 to respond to alcohol brands’ challenge
Old Monk and McDowell's No.1 Celebration Rum manufacturers have challenged the FSSAI's prohibition orders in the Bombay High Court, citing significant daily losses and questioning the regulator's process
The Bombay High Court has granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) until August 24 to submit its response to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Rum. These prominent rum brands are challenging FSSAI orders that prohibit their manufacture and sale. The manufacturers, including Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries and Diageo, argue that these prohibitions are causing substantial daily financial losses and that the FSSAI's actions were taken without the requisite legal authority or adherence to proper procedures. The brands highlight their long history of safe sales and lack of consumer complaints as evidence against the FSSAI's stringent stance.
The Bombay High Court has granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) until August 24 to submit its response to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Rum. These prominent rum brands are challenging FSSAI orders that prohibit their manufacture and sale. The manufacturers, including Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries and Diageo, argue that these prohibitions are causing substantial daily financial losses and that the FSSAI's actions were taken without the requisite legal authority or adherence to proper procedures. The brands highlight their long history of safe sales and lack of consumer complaints as evidence against the FSSAI's stringent stance.
The Bombay High Court has granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) until August 24 to submit its response to petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Rum. These prominent rum brands are challenging FSSAI orders that prohibit their manufacture and sale. The manufacturers, including Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries and Diageo, argue that these prohibitions are causing substantial daily financial losses and that the FSSAI's actions were taken without the requisite legal authority or adherence to proper procedures. The brands highlight their long history of safe sales and lack of consumer complaints as evidence against the FSSAI's stringent stance.
The Bombay High Court on Monday granted the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) time until August 24 to respond to the petitions filed by the manufacturers of Old Monk and McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Rum. The alcohol brands had challenged a direct order from the FSSAI prohibiting the manufacture and sale of their products over the use of flavouring substances.
Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries, Old Monk maker, challenged the regulator’s actions, stating that the order is creating a loss of almost ₹1 crore per day. Senior Counsel Navroz H. Seervai argued that the brand has been sold for over five decades and that the sudden restriction affected its business operations.
The company added that the prohibited rum has never caused any consumer complaints, noting that no customer reported an illness after consumption.
Diageo, the maker of McDowell’s No.1 Celebration Rum, also challenged two FSSAI orders. A Conditional Prohibition Order had permitted the petitioner to clear existing identified stocks. However, the brand is still not permitted to sell fresh stocks.
The company claimed that the food safety officer who issued the order “did not have the legal authority” to do so. It also argued that the regulator relied on a food analyst’s report to stop sales and did not follow the required process.
The manufacturers added that FSSAI’s own findings did not record that the products are unsafe for human consumption. Instead, the dispute was centred around labelling, classification and whether artificial flavouring can be used in products marketed as actual spirits.
The petitioner also challenged the prohibition order by a Designated Officer, highlighting that Section 36 (3) (b) only outlines general functions rather than a procedural mechanism for bans. Section 33 states that a judge should order the ban, and Section 34 states that the Commissioner of Food Safety can ban in extreme health-risk cases. The petitioner alleged that neither of the sections was followed.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Varma and Justice Surya Kant heard the Union of India’s petition, which claimed that the products contained artificial flavours. However, the court noted that the petitioners did not provide enough evidence to support the claim.