States’ full authority to control industrial alcohol: UP to SC
The Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the states have the full authority to regulate industrial alcohol and that the federal government cannot overrule them. It also emphasized the need to give the term “intoxicating liquor” a broader definition that would encompass industrial alcohol and bring it under the states’ legislative purview.
A nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was informed by UP’s attorney, Dinesh Dwivedi, that all liquids containing alcohol fall within the category of “intoxicating liquor.”
“The term ‘intoxicating’ has two meanings: (a) having the potential to induce intoxication or being capable of doing so, and (b) actually producing intoxication when consumed in its original form, as a beverage. After hearing the arguments for six days, the Bench reserved judgment on the case, Dwivedi informed the judges that both points should be covered under Entry 8’s definition of “all liquids containing alcohols.”
The production, possession, transportation, buying, and selling of “intoxicating liquors” are all covered by laws under Entry 8 of the State List under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. However, Entry 52 of the Union List and Entry 33 of the Concurrent List list businesses whose regulation is “declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest.”
A central law will take precedence over a state legislation, even if both Parliament and state legislatures are able to pass laws on the topics included in the Concurrent List.
After the seven-judge bench decided in 1997 that the Center would have regulatory authority over the manufacture of industrial alcohol, the case was referred to the nine-judge court in 2010.
