The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Why can’t states impose regulations on industrial alcohol to stop abuse: SC
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday sought to know from the Centre why the states, as the custodians of the health of citizens, cannot impose regulations on industrial alcohol and levy fees to ensure that its abuse does not take place.
A nine-judge constitution bench is examining the issue of overlapping powers of the Centre andstatesintheproduction,manufacturing, supply and regulation of industrial alcohol.
“We all know about Hooch tragediesandthestatesarewidely concerned about health of its citizens. Why should the states not havethepowertoregulate.ifthey can regulate to ensure that there is no misuse, then it can impose any fees,” the bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.
A bunch of petitions came before the bench after a sevenjudge constitution bench ruled against the states.
Thematterwasreferredtothe nine-judgebenchin2010afterthe seven-judge bench ruled in 1997 that the Centre would have regulatory power over the production of industrial alcohol.
Theseven-judgebenchhadin 1990 observed that through the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Union had “evinced a clear intention to occupy” legislative competence onthesubjectandhenceentry33 could not empower a state government.
The nine-judge constitution bench asked Mehta why the states cannot have a regulatory mechanismforindustrialalcohol.
“There is one area. Denatured spiritcanbeconvertedintointoxicatingliquorbyaprocess.thereis a possibility of abuse there. Can we deny to the state the regulatory power to ensure that the abuse does not take place? "The Centreisanationalentityfromthe state, you are not going to control what is happening in a district or collectorate. Suppose, there is a strong possibility of denatured spirit of being misused for consumption. “The state is rightly concernedasacustodianofhealth and it can impose regulations for ensuringthatabusedoesnottake place. Why should we deny them the power to impose fees for that purpose?” the bench said.
Referring to Hooch tragedies in the country, it said, "Can the state not say that this is happening within my territory and is likelytocauselawandorderproblems." Mehta replied that regulation of industrial alcohol lies with the Centre under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and only the Union has legislative power to levy excise duty on alcohol not fit for human consumption.
Commencing his arguments before the nine-judge bench, the law officer said the interpretation given by the court would not impact just industrial alcohol (the only subject argued by the petitioners) but every industry included in the Schedule I of Industries Regulation and Development Act, 1951.
“Some of the industries have always been considered to be necessary to remain under the central control if it is found to be in national interest... The Parliament, under List I Entry 52, is fully entitled to control everything as per its wisdom, requirements of a particular industry and to achieve the stated object of IDRA when Parliament is satisfied that the activities of an industry/industries which affects the country as a whole," Mehta said. The bench also comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.
Mehta submitted that the Union is also entitled to control the requirements of a particular industry if it ought to be governed by economic factors of an all-india import and cannot be permitted to be decided by any state according to their provincial interests. The hearing will resume on April 16.