Public health regulations must balance state interest with fundamental rights of trade and profession. Examine with reference to the 2026 Supreme Court ruling on Maharashtra's methanol rules.

Regulating a toxic substance is a legitimate state interest, but the means must survive constitutional scrutiny. In Balaji Formalin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 1009), the Supreme Court struck down Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, showing how proportionality mediates this balance [1].

The state's public health interest is genuine

• Methanol adulteration of illicit liquor causes mass poisoning deaths — the rules originated in the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy (~93 deaths) and a committee headed by then ADGP P.R. Parthasarthy [1].
• Methanol poisoning through spurious alcohol is a recognised global public health hazard, not a local problem [3].
• The Poisons Act, 1919 expressly empowers States to regulate possession and sale of specified poisons — the rules were validly sourced [2].

The competing right under Article 19(1)(g)

• Methanol is lawful industrial feedstock for formaldehyde, resins and paints; mandatory colourant and bitterant additives rendered petitioners' output commercially unusable [1].
• A permanent compliance burden on legitimate manufacturers runs against the wider governance push to prune needless compliances — over 47,000 compliances have been reduced nationally [4].

How the Court balanced the two

• Applying proportionality, the Court found the additives lacked sufficient nexus with the mischief: they might aid identification but neither prevented methanol's diversion into spurious liquor nor deterred consumption [1].
• Since a less restrictive alternative existed and the burden was excessive, the rules were held arbitrary under Article 14 and an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) [1].
• Crucially, the Court did not dilute regulation itself — it issued directions for coordinated, multi-department state action against illicit liquor [1].

The judgment affirms that public health and economic liberty are complementary, not rival, goals: the State may regulate strictly, provided the measure is evidence-based and narrowly tailored. The way forward lies in enforcement-centred regulation — supply-chain traceability, licensing audits and inter-agency intelligence — rather than blanket product mandates, aligning Article 21's health guarantee with Article 19(1)(g).