LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 18 September 2026

Is hardship caused to a section of society by itself ground to strike down a legislation that is otherwise fair and reasonable?

M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
2026 INSC 1009 · WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 893 OF 2019
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice K. Vinod Chandran
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Rule 18A Maharashtra Poisons Rul…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Hardship caused to a section of society is not by itself ground to strike down a legislation that is otherwise fair and reasonable.

No. Hardship caused to a section of society is not by itself ground to strike down a legislation that is otherwise fair and reasonable, though such State action must still be reasonable and proportionate.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.14 — Art.19(1)(g) — Art.19(6) — Poisons Act, 1919 — Subordinate legislation — Proportionality — Constitution of India — Art.19(6) — Proportionality test — Held: A restriction on a fundamental right must pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable and necessary, and be balanced against the individual's right. This four-fold test governs whether a restriction under Article 19(6) is proportionate. (¶54, 55, 56, 57, 58) Constitution of India — Subordinate legislation — Grounds of challenge — Held further: The validity of a subordinate legislation can be challenged on the same grounds available against a plenary legislation. These include lack of legislative competence, being ultra vires the Constitution or the parent Act, and being manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. (¶23, 24) Constitution of India — Art.19(1)(g) — Hardship not a ground alone — Held further: Hardship caused to a section of society is not by itself ground to strike down a legislation that is otherwise fair and reasonable. Such State action must nonetheless be reasonable and proportionate to withstand scrutiny. (¶39) Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972 — Rule 18A — Rule 18B — Application of the proportionality test — Held further: A rule mandating denaturants for methanol is not proportionate where less restrictive alternatives exist and the industries' burden is met only by a possible benefit. Rules 18A and 18B held violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); petitions and appeal allowed. (¶56, 57, 58, 60, 68)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 39We are conscious of the fact that some hardship or inconvenience that may be caused to a section of society cannot by itself be a ground to strike down a legislation. If a rule otherwise appears to be fair, just and reasonable, and does not suffer from the vice of any constitutional guarantee, mere fact that some hardship, financial burden, or commercial difficulty is caused is no ground to declare the State action unconstitutional. However, such actions must be reasonable and proportionate.
Acts & Sections
Rule 18A Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972Rule 18B Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972Article 14 Constitution of IndiaArticle 19(1)(g) Constitution of IndiaArticle 19(6) Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/S BALAJI FORMALIN PVT. LTD. & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must a restriction on a fundamental right pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable and necessary, and be balanced against the individual's right?Can the validity of a subordinate legislation be challenged on the same grounds available against a plenary legislation?Is a rule mandating denaturants for methanol proportionate where less restrictive alternatives exist and the industries' burden is met only by a possible benefit?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections