The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed an FSSAI order banning the sale of pre-packed whisky and rum produced by Associated Alcohols and Breweries Limited in Khargone district. According to reports from PTI and The Economic Times, a division bench of Justices Subodh Abhyankar and Alok Awasthi passed the interim order on August 6, while hearing a petition filed by the company. 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. The court held that the regulator issued the restrictive order without considering the company's reply to its show-cause notice, stating that the petitioner's products comply with parameters under the Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. As per the court's directive, "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."
As reported by PTI, the FSSAI order cited violations for added artificial flavouring substances on product labels. According to the FSSAI's preliminary laboratory report, the product labels mentioned the use of 'artificial flavours' and 'nature identical flavouring substance', which violated prescribed standards. However, the company claimed that the use of extra neutral alcohol (ENA), permitted flavours and colours was fully legal under the Madhya Pradesh excise laws. The company also challenged FSSAI's jurisdiction, arguing that the state government has exclusive authority over the production and regulation of liquor.
According to PTI, the company 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. The company argued that the July 29 prohibition order did not even refer to the company's reply, which the bench rejected as unsatisfactory. 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, but the bench rejected this contention as unsatisfactory. The court's decision emphasized that the company's products meet regulatory standards under existing excise laws.
As reported by PTI and The Economic Times, the High Court also directed the Centre to file its response within four weeks. The bench held that the regulator issued the restrictive order without considering the company's reply to its show-cause notice. The court noted that the petitioner's products comply with parameters under the Excise Act and Rules made thereunder, directing that the operation and effect of the prohibition order shall remain stayed until the next hearing date. The court's decision emphasized that the company's products meet regulatory standards under existing excise laws.
