Today,18th April, Supreme Court Postponed Ruling on Industrial Alcohol Regulation. The Supreme Court delayed its decision on the matter of regulating industrial alcohol. The verdict on this crucial issue remains pending as the court reviews all aspects. Stakeholders await the final judgment as implications for the industry hang in the balance.
New Delhi: On Thursday, the Supreme Court withheld its decision regarding the overlapping powers of the Centre and states concerning the production, manufacturing, supply, and regulation of industrial alcohol. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud led a nine-judge Constitution bench that listened to arguments presented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Dinesh Dwivedi and Arvind P Datar representing the Uttar Pradesh government, and various other lawyers representing different states.
Read Also:SC: Can’t get into between rivalry
Industrial alcohol not intended for human consumption. Entry 8 in the State List under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution grants states the authority 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 refer to industries whose control “declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest.”
Dwivedi explained,
“The term ‘intoxicating’ encompasses both meanings, indicating substances capable of causing intoxication and those causing intoxication when consumed as a beverage. Both aspects align under Entry 8, encompassing ‘all liquids containing alcohols,”
He informed the bench, which reserved its judgment after a six-day hearing.
The bench, including Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, listened to arguments presented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Dwivedi and Arvind P Datar representing the Uttar Pradesh government, and various other lawyers representing different states.
Although both Parliament and state legislatures can pass laws on Concurrent List subjects, federal laws take precedence over state laws. A group of petitions reached the nine-judge bench following a seven-judge Constitution bench ruling against the states. The nine-judge bench took up the matter in 2010 after the seven-judge bench decided in 1997 that regulatory authority over industrial alcohol production would rest with the Centre.
Read Also:Is extending SC/ST reservation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies valid?
The seven-judge bench, in 1990, noted that through the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Union “evinced a clear intention to occupy” legislative competence on the subject and hence, Entry 33 could not empower a state government.