SC overturns 1997 judgment, upholds power of states to regulate industrial alcohol

The order saw an 8:1 majority in favour of the states, with Justice BV Nagarathna writing a dissenting judgement

Supreme Court on October 23 revered its 1997 order to uphold the power of states to regulate industrial alcohol under the term 'intoxicating liquor'.

The case was decided by a 9-judge Constitution bench of the top court led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

In an 8:1 majority ruling, the apex court overturned a seven-judge bench verdict and held that states have regulatory power over production, manufacture and supply of industrial alcohol. Justice BV Justice Nagarathna wrote the dissenting order.

In 1997, the seven-judge bench ruled that the Centre had the regulatory power over the production of industrial alcohol. The case was referred to the nine-judge bench in 2010.

Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, who wrote the latest judgement for himself and seven other judges, said the Centre lacks the regulatory power. CJI said that industrial alcohol under Entry 8 List II cannot be overtaken by the Parliament under Entry 52 List I, Live Law reported, adding state's power cannot be taken away for legislating laws on intoxicating liquor.

Industrial alcohol is not meant for human consumption.

While Entry 8 in the State List under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution gives the states the power to legislate on the manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of "intoxicating liquors", Entry 52 of the Union List and Entry 33 of the Concurrent List mention industries whose control was "declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest".

While both parliament and state legislatures can enact laws on the subjects mentioned in the Concurrent List, a central law will have primacy over the state law.

The nine-judge Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions after a seven-judge Constitution bench ruled against the state governments.

With PTI inputs