E-Paper
State's power to make laws on industrial alcohol can't be taken away: Supreme Court in 8:1 majority verdict
The Supreme Court overruled a 1990 seven-judge bench decision in Synthetics and Chemicals case.
The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution bench by a 8:1 majority on Wednesday held that states have power to regulate industrial alcohol.
The Supreme Court overruled a 1990 seven-judge bench decision in Synthetics and Chemicals case which held to the contrary and held in favour of the Centre by ruling that states cannot claim to regulate industrial alcohol even under the Concurrent List.
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.
The majority ruling was given by CJI DY Chandrachud, justices Hrishikesh Roy, AS Oka, JB Pardiwala, Ujjal Bhuyan, Manoj Misra, SC Sharma and AG Masih.
The dissenting opinion was given by justice BV Nagarathna, who held that Centre alone, will have the legislative power to regulate industrial alcohol.
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.
