Old Monk’s manufacturer says a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) prohibition on certain rum variants is costing it nearly ₹1 crore a day, turning a dispute over flavouring and labelling into a significant business and regulatory battle.
The claim was made by senior counsel Navroz Seervai before the Bombay High Court on August 10, as Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries challenged FSSAI’s action. The court did not grant immediate interim relief and has sought the Centre’s response before taking the matter forward.
Why FSSAI Restricted Old Monk
The regulatory action does not amount to a blanket ban on the Old Monk brand. It covers three variants manufactured by Mohan Rocky Springwater in Maharashtra: Old Monk The Legend, Gold Reserve and XXX Matured Rum.
The action forms part of a wider FSSAI intervention involving selected rum and whisky products manufactured by United Spirits and Inbrew Beverages as well.
According to FSSAI, laboratory tests found external artificial or nature-identical flavouring substances in the products it examined. The regulator said the products were sub-standard because of the presence of these external flavours.
FSSAI has specifically objected to the addition of flavouring corresponding to the same spirit being sold under the standard name of that spirit. Its position is that adding rum flavour to rum or whisky flavour to whisky can mask the natural characteristics of the product and mislead consumers unless the product is appropriately identified as flavoured.
What The Manufacturers Argue
The manufacturers dispute FSSAI’s interpretation and have approached the Bombay High Court against the prohibitory orders.
Mohan Rocky Springwater’s case centres partly on the long-standing sale of Old Monk under the existing product description. Seervai argued that the rum had been sold under the relevant statutory provisions for more than five decades.
He also told the court that changing the label would effectively amount to accepting that the product had been incorrectly described for decades.
The manufacturers also argued that the products had been sold for years and that there had been no consumer complaints or reported illnesses linked to them. These are arguments advanced by the companies in court and should not be treated as an independent finding by the court or FSSAI.
The distinction is important because the current proceedings are not about whether Old Monk is generally safe to consume. The Bombay High Court has explicitly said that the core issue before it is statutory compliance rather than product quality.
₹1 Crore Daily Loss Claim
The most striking financial figure in the proceedings came from Mohan Rocky Springwater’s side.
Seervai told the court, “I am losing a crore a day,” referring to the impact of the prohibition on the business.
For now, the prohibition concerns specified products and manufacturing facilities, rather than every Old Monk product sold across India. Reuters also noted that it was initially unclear whether the action extended to the same brands produced at other facilities.
Bombay HC Seeks Centre Reply
The Bombay High Court on August 10 declined to pass immediate interim orders on the manufacturers’ petitions. The companies had sought a stay on the FSSAI prohibitory orders, arguing that the restrictions had effectively halted sales of existing stock unless the products were relabelled.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad decided that FSSAI’s response should be placed on record before the court considers interim relief. The Centre has been directed to serve its response on the petitioners by August 19. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on August 24.
That means the legal position remains unsettled. FSSAI has taken the position that the disputed flavouring practices make the products non-compliant with applicable standards, while the manufacturers maintain that their products comply with existing laws and have challenged the prohibition.
For Old Monk’s manufacturer, the case is therefore about more than the immediate loss of sales. It raises a regulatory question over how established alcoholic beverages using added flavouring should be classified, described and sold under India’s food-safety framework.
The Bombay High Court’s forthcoming proceedings will determine whether the prohibition can continue in its present form while the broader legal dispute is examined.
Also Read: Jharkhand Recruitment Row Escalates: Devendra Nath Mahto Hospitalised After 9-Day Hunger Strike
