Arguing for UP govt, advocate Dinesh Dwivedi mentioned Tuesday all liquids having alcohol qualify as intoxicating liquor and fall beneath Entry 8 of Checklist II in Seventh Schedule, which confers unique jurisdiction to states to manage and regulate every kind of spirits produced from molasses.
The seriousness of the difficulty, involving a significant revenue-generating supply, wasn’t misplaced on SC, with a choose saying, “The argument of states is that whether or not intoxicating drinks convey pleasure to human beings or not, it ought to convey pleasure to state income.”
Just lately, SC reserved verdict on one other Centre-state dispute over taxation of mineral-bearing land.
SC: Overlap of jurisdiction of Centre, states on alcohol row
The topic was such that even members of the bench, which comprised Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, A S Oka, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Satish C Sharma and Augustine Masih, indulged in mild banter to maintain the proceedings cheerful.
One confessed ignorance about liquor to say that he and his ilk on the bench will determine the difficulty impartially. One other choose informed Dwivedi, a whisky lover, that he had defined how “some alcohol requires ageing to enhance style, whereas others do not; some are truthful in color whereas others are darkish”, and requested, “Would materials exhibit assist?” The query drew peals of laughter.
Within the current case, states are empowered by Entry 8 of Checklist II to manage and regulate “intoxicating liquors, that’s to say, manufacturing, manufacture, possession, transport, buy and sale of intoxicating liquor”. The matter was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2010 as a seven-judge bench in 1997 had dominated that Centre could have regulatory energy over manufacturing of business alcohol. Therefore the query: Can industrial alcohol be termed as intoxicating liquor?
The battle arises from Industrial (Improvement and Regulation) Act, 1951, & 2016 modification empowering Centre to control industries producing, supplying, distributing and indulging in commerce and commerce of business alcohol. Below Entry 52 of Checklist I, Parliament in public curiosity can enact a regulation to control any business.
CJI mentioned the bench is “dealing with a conundrum as the 2 entries, Entry 52 of Checklist I and Entry 8 of Checklist II, are similar in nature and there’s a full overlap of jurisdiction of Centre and states. A technique of deciding it’s to depend on federal construction of governance and the opposite is to take steerage from Article 246(1)”, which explains distribution of law-making energy of Parliament and assemblies. Arguments will proceed on Wednesday.
