HC stays FSSAI ban on pre-packed whisky, rum of Khargone firm

Indore, The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed an FSSAI order banning the sale of pre-packed whisky and rum produced by a private firm in Khargone district.

A division bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Alok Awasthi passed the interim order on August 6 while hearing a petition filed by Associated Alcohols and Breweries Limited.

The bench stayed the order passed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on July 29 till the next hearing on September 7, holding that the regulator issued the restrictive order without considering the company's reply to its show-cause notice.


"Thus, considering the fact that otherwise the petitioner's products, namely, Pre-packed whisky and Rum as mentioned in the impugned order of prohibition comply with the parameters as provided under the Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is directed that till the next date of hearing operation and effect of the impugned order of prohibition dated 29.07.2026 shall remain stayed," the bench said.

The High Court also directed the Centre to file its response within four weeks.

Stating a preliminary laboratory report, the FSSAI order had said that the product labels mentioned the use of "artificial flavours" and "nature identical flavouring substance", which violated prescribed standards.

The company, however, claimed that the use of extra neutral alcohol (ENA), permitted flavours and colours was fully legal under the Madhya Pradesh excise laws.

It also challenged FSSAI's jurisdiction, arguing that the state government has exclusive authority over the production and regulation of liquor.

Senior advocate Piyush Mathur, appearing for the company, told the court that it received the show-cause notice on July 20 and submitted a detailed reply within the stipulated period on July 27.

But the July 29 prohibition order did not even refer to the company's reply, the lawyer argued.

Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain, appearing for the Centre, argued that the authority did not decide on the company's preliminary objections on jurisdiction raised in its reply.

The bench, however, rejected the contention as unsatisfactory.