Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently wrapped up a crucial 9-judge Constitution Bench hearing concerning the regulatory authority over industrial alcohol. The central question at hand was whether states possess the power to govern industrial alcohol under their jurisdiction over intoxicating liquor, or if this authority is exclusively reserved for the Union. This landmark case, referred to as STATE OF U.P. vs. M/S. LALTA PRASAD VAISH C.A. No. 000151 / 2007 & Other Connected Matters, has significant implications for the division of legislative powers between the Centre and the states.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The arguments presented before the Court reflected divergent interpretations of the term “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 List II of the Constitution. While the majority of states advocated for a broad interpretation encompassing industrial alcohol, Senior Advocate Mr. V Giri contended that only denatured spirit qualifies as industrial alcohol. He reasoned that Entry 8 List II covers every aspect of alcohol production, including raw materials like Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA). On the contrary, Senior Advocates representing Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Maharashtra asserted that “intoxicating liquor” inherently includes industrial alcohol.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court bench extensively deliberated on the nuances of legislative competence and the interpretation of relevant constitutional provisions. The rejoinder session witnessed a thorough examination of precedents, including the pivotal Tika Ramji case, to ascertain the scope of state authority. The bench reserved its decision after meticulous consideration of arguments over six exhaustive days, emphasizing the need for clarity in delineating the regulatory domain of industrial alcohol.