Aim BharatThe Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of nine judges, ruled on Wednesday with an 8:1 majority that states possess the authority to regulate industrial alcohol.
The Supreme Court has overturned a 1990 decision made by a seven-judge bench in the Synthetics and Chemicals case, which had previously ruled in favor of state regulation. The Court determined that states do not possess the authority to regulate industrial alcohol, even under the Concurrent List, thereby siding with the Centre.
In 1997, the seven-judge bench had affirmed that the Centre held regulatory authority over the production of industrial alcohol. This matter was subsequently escalated to a nine-judge bench in 2010.
The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, AS Oka, JB Pardiwala, Ujjal Bhuyan, Manoj Misra, SC Sharma, and AG Masih. Justice BV Nagarathna provided the dissenting view, asserting that only the Centre should possess the legislative power to regulate industrial alcohol.
It is important to note that industrial alcohol is not intended for human consumption.
Entry 8 of the State List in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution grants states the authority to legislate on the manufacture, possession, transport, purchase, and sale of “intoxicating liquors.” Conversely, Entry 52 of the Union List and Entry 33 of the Concurrent List refer to industries that Parliament has deemed necessary to regulate in the public interest.
While both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on matters within the Concurrent List, any central law will take precedence over state law. The nine-judge Constitution bench was reviewing a series of petitions following the earlier ruling by the seven-judge Constitution bench against the state governments.
