Justice BV Nagarathna – ThePrint –

New Delhi, Oct 23 (PTI) Disagreeing with a majority verdict, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna on Wednesday held that states do not have legislative jurisdiction to regulate production, manufacture and supply of industrial alcohol .

In an 8-1 majority decision, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with seven other judges, held that states would have the power to regulate industrial alcohol and said that the term “alcohol intoxicating” in Entry 8 of the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would include industrial alcohol within its ambit.

“Denatured alcohol belongs to the industrial alcohol family and hence section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act (IDRA) has a bearing on the said product,” she said.

The judge further noted that section 18G occupied the scope of Entry 33(a) – List III and therefore only Parliament had jurisdiction to legislate on all sections or a class of sections relating to a listed industry, namely fermentation industries.

The judge said the IDRA, which was enacted by Parliament under Entry 52 – List I, took control of the fermentation industries as a scheduled industry.

Such fermentation industries would exclude intoxicating drinks, she added.

“States referred to in entry 8 – List II have the power to regulate “intoxicating beverages” intended for human consumption as a beverage and, in this regard, have the power to prohibit the conversion of “alcohol industrial” into alcohol intended for human consumption as a beverage. “, noted the judge.

Justice Nagarathna, therefore, emphasized: “This is in order to protect the health of citizens, which is a directive principle of State policy under Article 47 of the Constitution, and in order to prohibit the use/l unauthorized abuse of “industrial alcohol” produced in the state. to be processed and sold as “intoxicating liquors” intended for human consumption as a drink. While Entry 8 of the State List under the 7th Schedule of the Constitution gives the States the power to legislate on the manufacture, possession, transportation, purchase and sale of “intoxicating liquors”, the Entry 52 of the Union List and Entry 33 of the Concurrent List The list mentions industries whose control has been “declared by law by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest”.

Although Parliament and state legislatures can enact laws on the subjects mentioned in the concurrent list, a central law has primacy over state law.

Several state governments, including Uttar Pradesh, had challenged the judgment of seven judges and challenged the Centre’s stand that it had exclusive control over industrial alcohol.

The seven judges had observed, in 1990, that through the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Union had “demonstrated a clear intention to occupy” legislative jurisdiction over the subject and that, therefore , Entry 33 could not give a State the power to do so. government.

The case was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2010 after it, comprising seven judges, ruled that the Center would have regulatory power over the production of industrial alcohol. PTI PKS AMK PKS AMK AMK AMK

This report is automatically generated from PTI news service. ThePrint assumes no responsibility for its content.