New Delhi, Sept. 19 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down regulations in Maharashtra requiring methanol sellers to add a colourant and a bittering agent to the chemical before selling it to non-drug manufacturers so as to prevent hooch tragedies, holding that the restrictions shift the burden on legitimate businesses without serving the public interest. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran held that Rules 18A and 18B, introduced in the Maharashtra Poisons Rules through a 2011 amendment following a major hooch tragedy in Mumbai, violated Articles 14 (right to equality) and 19(1)(g) (right to carry on any business) of the Constitution. The top court allowed a batch of petitions filed by chemical manufacturers, including Balaji Formalin, Balaji Amines, Akyl Chemicals, Aarti Industries and Thermo Fisher Scientific, who had argued that the rules mandating such "denaturing" of methanol destroyed the commercial usability of their products. Rules 18A and 18B required anyone selling methanol in the state to verify that the buyer held a Form A licence under the Poisons Act before completing the sale. Unless the buyer was an FDA-certified drug manufacturer, the seller also had to physically alter the methanol, mixing in a "colourant" and a "bitter-tasting additive (denatonium saccharide)" into every 100 litres before the sale could go through. According to the rules, any methanol found in someone's possession without a Form A licence was liable to confiscation. The Maharashtra government's rationale behind the regulations was that if methanol looked and tasted like poison, nobody would accidentally drink it as liquor. The rules were introduced based on the recommendations of a committee set up by the Maharashtra government to investigate the causes behind the 1991 hooch tragedy in Mumbai, when around 250 people unknowingly consumed spurious liquor laced with methanol at a local bar. Ninety-three of them died. Among the committee's suggestions was a proposal to amend the Maharashtra Poisons Rules to classify methanol as a "poison". Rules 18A and 18B were accordingly introduced through a 2011 amendment to regulate the sale of methanol in the state. The Supreme Court, however, held that the two rules were "manifestly arbitrary", "disproportionate", and "excessive". "What is discernible. is that the restriction fails to strike a balance as it shifts the burden onto a class of persons while also leaving the public interest unserved. The state action is excessive," the bench said. It added that the state could have opted for "less drastic" alternatives, such as licence cancellation for violators or stricter renewal conditions. The court held that the rules failed the test of arbitrariness and proportionality under Article 14, which guarantees the fundamental right to equality. It also agreed with the petitioners' submissions that the rules violated their right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution....