The Supreme Court of India decided that state governments can make laws about selling 'industrial alcohol,' which is also called 'denatured spirits.' Even though this type of alcohol is not for drinking, the court said it can be included under the category of 'intoxicating liquor' in the list of topics that states can make laws about. Eight out of nine judges, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, agreed with this decision. This means states now have the power to regulate industrial alcohol, even if it's not meant for human consumption.

 

States' right to control industrial alcohol confirmed

The majority of the bench ruled in favour of petitioning states, including Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Kerala. They said that the term 'intoxicating liquor' should not only refer to alcohol that people can drink. Instead, it should include all liquids that have alcohol, even if they are not meant for drinking.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said that states have the right to make laws about both 'intoxicating' and 'industrial' alcohol, and this cannot be challenged. This means the central government cannot take control of this matter from the states. The decision changes a ruling made 34 years ago in the Synthetics and Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh case, which had limited how much control states had over industrial alcohol. That old ruling was reviewed again by the current nine-judge bench starting in 2007.

The Chief Justice explained that states can keep controlling industrial alcohol because they already manage intoxicating liquor. This will help them better handle illegal alcohol activities and related problems. The judges' decision made it clear that states have the right to make laws about this, and no one can question their authority on this matter.

 

Disagreement from Justice BV Nagarathna

 

Justice BV Nagarathna, who did not agree with the other judges, said that 'industrial alcohol' is different from 'intoxicating alcohol' because people cannot drink it. She believes that state governments should not have the power to make laws about industrial alcohol. She also said that the earlier court decision in the Synthetics case, which limited states' control over industrial alcohol, was correct.

Justice Nagarathna pointed out that just because some people might use industrial alcohol illegally doesn't mean states should be allowed to control it. She felt this would be going too far and that the central government should keep control over industrial alcohol. She also said that the majority's decision mixed up industrial alcohol with intoxicating alcohol, which might cause confusion later.

The Supreme Court made this decision after a long six-day hearing in April. The main question was whether industrial alcohol should be treated like 'intoxicating liquor,' which would allow states to make laws about it. The states involved said that if only the central government had the power to control industrial alcohol, they would have trouble stopping people from using it illegally.

The judges were also asked to decide if the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act of 1951 (IRDA) gave the central government the right to make laws about industrial alcohol. The issue was about Entry 33 of the Concurrent List, which lets both the central and state governments control the trade, production, and sale of industrial alcohol. There is also Entry 8 in the State List, which allows states to control intoxicating alcohol, including how it is made, owned, moved, bought, and sold.

The other judges on the bench were Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S. Oka, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, all of whom agreed with the majority ruling.