NEW DELHI: A nine-judge Supreme Court bench resolving a difficult concern – whether ‘commercial alcohol’ is like ‘envigorating alcohol’ – would have been a reward for tipplers as the lead supporter, a self-confessed whisky enthusiast, spiritedly attempted to develop states’ unique jurisdiction over all sorts of alcohol-from denatured spirits to whisky, vodka, gin, rum and nation alcohol – to suppress Centre’s regulative power to make them. Arguing for UP govt, supporter Dinesh Dwivedi stated Tuesday all liquids having alcohol certify as envigorating alcohol and fall under Entry 8 of List II in Seventh Schedule, which gives unique jurisdiction to states to manage and manage all sort of spirits produced from molasses. The severity of the concern, including a significant revenue-generating source, wasn’t lost on SC, with a judge stating, “The argument of states is that whether intoxicating beverages bring pleasure to humans or not, it needs to bring pleasure to state profits.” Just recently, SC booked decision on another Centre-state disagreement over tax of mineral-bearing land. SC: Overlap of jurisdiction of Centre, mentions on alcohol row The topic was such that even members of the bench, which made up 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, delighted in light small talk to keep the procedures pleasant. One admitted lack of knowledge about alcohol to claim that he and his ilk on the bench will choose the problem impartially. Another judge informed Dwivedi, a whisky fan, that he had discussed how “some alcohol needs ageing to enhance taste, while others do not; some are reasonable in colour while others are dark”, and asked, “Would product show aid?” The concern drew peals of laughter. In today case, states are empowered by Entry 8 of List II to manage and control “envigorating alcohols, that is to state, production, manufacture, belongings, transportation, purchase and sale of envigorating alcohol”. The matter was described a nine-judge bench in 2010 as a seven-judge bench in 1997 had actually ruled that Centre will have regulative power over production of commercial alcohol. The concern: Can commercial alcohol be called as envigorating alcohol? The dispute occurs from Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, & 2016 change empowering Centre to control markets producing, providing, dispersing and delighting in trade and commerce of commercial alcohol. Under Entry 52 of List I, Parliament in public interest can enact a law to manage any market. CJI stated the bench is “dealing with a problem as the 2 entries, Entry 52 of List I and Entry 8 of List II, equal in nature and there is a total overlap of jurisdiction of Centre and states. One method of choosing it is to depend on federal structure of governance and the other is to take assistance from Article 246( 1 )”, which discusses circulation of law-making power of Parliament and assemblies. Arguments will advance Wednesday.
Centre vs states in Supreme Court over control of commercial alcohol – The Times of India
