The Supreme Court concluded its 9-judge Constitution Bench hearing on April 18, focusing on whether States have authority over regulating ‘industrial alcohol’ in line with their control over ‘intoxicating liquor,’ or if this falls exclusively under Union jurisdiction.
During the final hearing day, the Court held a rejoinder session. While most states argued for interpreting ‘intoxicating liquor’ broadly to include denatured spirit/industrial alcohol, Senior Advocate Mr. V Giri representing Kerala presented a differing perspective.
He contended that Entry 8 List II encompasses ‘all alcohol types except denatured spirit.’ Giri clarified that Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA- non-flavored alcohol at 95%) shouldn’t be considered industrial alcohol; instead, it’s the denatured spirit resulting from the denaturation of rectified/potable spirit that qualifies as industrial alcohol.
Giri highlighted that ENA serves as a raw material in producing ‘intoxicating liquor’ or potable alcohol, falling under the State’s legislation-making powers under Entry 8 List II.
The Court’s Chief Justice observed that Giri’s argument to include ENA as a raw material in ‘intoxicating liquor’ production contradicts the ‘industry’ definition from Tika Ramji case.
The discussion extended to a prior case involving legislative conflicts over sugarcane regulation. The Court clarified that ‘industry’ involves raw materials, manufacturing, and distribution, typically governed by Entry 24 of List II unless it’s a central subject under Entry 52 of List I.
The Solicitor General clarified the relevance of Tika Ramji in the present case, emphasizing distinctions in legislative domains between List I and List II.
In rejoinder, Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi highlighted historical legislative intent and judicial precedents in reconciling conflicting entries.
The 9-judge bench reserved its decision after six days of exhaustive deliberation on whether ‘denatured spirit or industrial alcohol’ falls under ‘intoxicating liquor’ within State legislative powers. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led the bench, which included Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, B.V. Nagarathna, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.
This case stems from a 2007 referral to interpret Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951(IDR Act), addressing State and Union powers over regulating certain industries.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
