SC questions Centre’s rigid position on exclusive control over industrial alcohol
A ninejudge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Centre’s rigid position to have exclusive control over industrial alcohol without giving States even the opportunity to regulate its inflow and clandestine conversion to potable liquor for human consumption, posing a grave threat to public health.
“There is a strong possibility of denatured spirit or industrial alcohol being misused for the purpose of human consumption. The State is the guardian of public health. States are concerned about liquor tragedies happening within their jurisdictions. You (Centre), on the other hand, are a disconnected entity. You are not going to be concerned with what happens in a district or a collectorate… Why can’t the State make regulations to prevent the misuse of industrial alcohol?” Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud asked SolicitorGeneral Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
The Constitution Bench is deciding a tussle between the Union and States over power to levy tax, manufacture, produce alcohol.
The Centre claimed that industrial alcohol was an “industry” controlled by the Union government in public interest under a parliamentary law. Such an industry was covered by Entry 52 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Though trade and commerce, supply, distribution, and production of the products of such industries were included as Entry 33(a) of the Concurrent List, this had to be read in consonance with and as an extension of the Centre’s power under Entry 52. In short, the Centre was in complete control of every aspect of such industries.
Limit of power
Mr. Mehta said the States’ power extended to only “intoxicating liquors” fit for human consumption.
However, States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab and even a petition from Uttar Pradesh raised alarm about industrial alcohol being used to make intoxicating liquor. In such cases, they argued that States cannot remain mute spectators and wait for tragedy to strike.
The SolicitorGeneral said the Centre has retained control over industrial alcohol in public interest. It was empowered under Entry 52 to ensure equitable distribution of resources.
“The meaning of the word ‘control’ has been expanded to ‘development’. The development of an industry includes sourcing raw materials to distribution, which has to be done at an all India level,” Mr. Mehta explained.
He said giving States power to regulate industrial alcohol to prevent abuse would mean amending the Entry.