News18
Justice BV Nagarathna on the nine-judge SC bench dissented with the majority verdict.(Image: PTI/File)
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who wrote the latest judgement for himself and seven other judges, said the Centre lacks the regulatory power.
In an 8:1 majority verdict, the Supreme Court overturned a 1997 verdict giving the Centre an upper hand over the regulation of industrial alcohol. The top court held that states have regulatory power over the production, manufacture, and supply of industrial alcohol.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who wrote the latest judgement for himself and seven other judges, said the Centre lacks the regulatory power. This rejected the Centre’s stand that any liquid containing alcohol not fit for human consumption but meant for industrial use will fall within the exclusive regulation regime of the Union.
Justice BV Nagarathna on the nine-judge SC bench dissented with the majority verdict.
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.
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.
