Bombay HC seeks Centre’s reply on FSSAI flavoured rum and whisky ban

The Bombay High Court has asked the Centre to respond to liquor makers challenging FSSAI’s prohibition on flavoured rum and whisky variants. Old Monk’s maker says the ban is costing it nearly ₹1 crore a day, while United Spirits and other producers are also affected.

— Source publishedMon, 10 Aug, 2026, 15:20 IST·First seen Mon, 10 Aug, 2026, 15:29 IST·Source Mint · Industry

The brand move

Bombay High Court sought the Centre’s response to liquor makers challenging FSSAI’s ban on flavoured rum and whisky variants. Old Monk’s maker says the prohibition costs nearly ₹1 crore daily; United Spirits and other producers are also affected.

The numbers

  • ₹1 crore per day
  • more than 50 years
  • 19 August
  • 24 August
  • 2018
  • six other manufacturers

Why it matters for the brand

Prioritize diligence on regulatory dependence in any spirits-brand partnership or acquisition, especially where growth assumptions rely on flavoured alcohol extensions.

What to track next

  • Centre's affidavit and whether it cites food-safety authority, additive rules, labelling issues or product-classification grounds.
  • Any interim stay, carve-out for existing stock, or permission to sell pending final adjudication.
  • FSSAI clarification on which flavouring agents, declarations or spirit categories are prohibited.
  • State excise departments' enforcement posture, including seizures, licence actions or divergent state-level interpretations.
  • Evidence of shelf delistings, distributor returns, price cuts or substitution toward unaffected alcohol categories.
  • Whether other producers join the case or launch parallel challenges, increasing pressure for a nationwide standard.
  • Freeze fresh production and distributor dispatches of directly affected SKUs while ring-fencing sellable inventory by state and batch.
  • Prepare reformulated, relabelled or category-shifted alternatives that can meet a clarified standard without diluting flagship-brand equity.
  • Use legal filings and industry associations to seek product-specific guidance, transition periods and treatment of existing inventory.
  • Redirect trade marketing and retail visibility toward unaffected core rum, whisky, premium spirits and ready-to-drink portfolios.
  • Model daily revenue exposure, distributor credit risk and potential inventory write-downs; avoid rebuilding affected-SKU stock before the hearing outcome.

The counter-case

The headline may overstate the immediate business impact: a court request for the Centre’s reply is procedural, not a stay or a final ruling. The claimed ₹1 crore-a-day loss is an interested-party estimate and may reflect a narrow portfolio rather than sector-wide damage. Producers can potentially reformulate, relabel, redirect demand to unflavoured variants, or use state-level product approvals, limiting sustained revenue impact. Moreover, a clearer rule could ultimately favor large, compliant incumbents over smaller brands with weaker quality-control and regulatory capabilities.