The Maharashtra government has defended its new Maharashtra Made Liquor (MML) policy before the Bombay High Court, claiming that the move has significantly boosted excise revenue since its introduction.
Responding to a petition challenging the policy, the State told the Court that excise collections between July and November 2025 increased by nearly 17 percent after the rollout of MML. Revenue during this period rose from ₹9,665.64 crore in 2024–25 to ₹11,299.40 crore in 2025–26—an increase of ₹1,633.76 crore.
The challenge has been filed by the International Spirits and Wines Association of India (ISWA), an industry body representing global liquor companies such as Pernod Ricard, Diageo and Bacardi.
Under the new policy, MML has been introduced as a sub-category of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The category attracts lower excise duty and comes with a cap on retail prices to make liquor more affordable. However, only liquor manufactured within Maharashtra by licensed local producers is eligible to be sold as MML.
The State excise department told the Court that the policy aims to promote local manufacturers and revive underutilised distillery capacity within Maharashtra. It also pointed out that revenue growth after the introduction of MML was higher than the average 12 percent increase recorded between April and June 2025, before the duty revision and policy rollout.
“This clearly shows positive growth after the introduction of the new policy,” the government submitted.
The government further argued that the policy was necessary to correct an uneven market structure. According to official data, nearly 64 percent of liquor production in 2024–25 was concentrated among just nine potable liquor licence (PLL) holders, many of whom are linked to ISWA members or their subsidiaries. The State said the MML category was designed to support smaller and struggling domestic manufacturers through targeted incentives.
ISWA, however, has termed the policy arbitrary and discriminatory. The association has argued that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution by creating a “preferential class” of licence holders who alone are allowed to manufacture MML, while excluding others who are similarly placed, including its own members.
As per the eligibility criteria, only PLL holders with their registered head office in Maharashtra, at least 25 percent local promoters, no foreign investment, and brands manufactured exclusively within the State can qualify to produce MML.
ISWA contended that these conditions defeat the stated objectives of employment generation, investment promotion, full utilisation of distillery capacity and increased excise revenue. The association argued that the same goals could be achieved by allowing all PLL holders to manufacture MML, instead of restricting the benefits to a limited group.
The Maharashtra government has also questioned ISWA’s right to challenge the policy, noting that the association itself does not hold any potable liquor licence. While acknowledging that Pernod Ricard India holds two PLLs in Nashik and Kolhapur, the State said most other ISWA members do not operate manufacturing units in Maharashtra.
Invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, the State argued that the manufacture and trade of excisable goods is a government privilege, which can be granted only to licence holders and that ISWA, not being a licence holder, has no legal standing to challenge the policy on behalf of its members.
The Bombay High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on December 23. Earlier, on November 24, the Court had allowed the State to proceed with preparatory steps for implementing the policy, while clarifying that such steps would be subject to the final outcome of the case.
