Why Can't States Regulate Misuse Of Industrial Alcohol To Control Liquor Tragedies? Supreme Court Asks Union [Day 4]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 9) resumed its 4th day of hearing the Constitutional issue whether the Union has exclusive control over 'industrial alcohol' and whether the States can control it under the garb of exercising their powers over 'intoxicating liquor'.During the hearing, the Court questioned the Union's argument that it has exclusive control over 'industrial alcohol', by pointing out that the States may find it necessary to control the illegal conversion of industrial alcohol into alcohol meant for human consumption."There is a strong possibility of denatured spirit or industrial alcohol being misused for the purpose of human consumption. The State is the guardian of public health. States are concerned about liquor tragedies happening within their jurisdictions. You (Centre), on the other hand, are a disconnected entity. You are not going to be concerned with what happens in a district or a collectorate... Why can't the State make regulations to prevent the misuse of industrial alcohol?," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked.The Union, represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehtaa, submitted that the expression -intoxicating liquor had to be strictly understood as a drinkable beverage, which has an intoxicating impact on human beings, under licensed premises or under a varied license. It was also clarified that 'human consumption' in this context has to mean human 'legitimate' consumption. The CJI also weighed to observe that the framers of the Constitution have couched the regulatory powers in a more vivid sense than the framing of the taxing powers of the state. Keeping in mind that taxing laws require specificity, the Entries of taxing liquor have been expressed with certainty, however, the framers were mindful that regulatory powers would entail social factors that may arise in future and hence entries of regulation per se were kept more open. He noted that when the government decides to impose tax on a subject like alcoholic drinks that people consume, they specifically mention alcoholic drinks because that's what they're interested in taxing. However, when it comes to making rules about 'intoxicating liquor', the approach is broader. This is because rules aren't just about taxes; they're also about controlling both legal and illegal activities related to liquor. The idea behind giving states the power to control 'intoxicating liquor' isn't just about dealing with alcohol itself. It's also about managing its social impacts and handling situations where the problem isn't alcohol but other substances that can make people intoxicated."Alcoholic liquor for consumption by humans is a species of Intoxicating Liquor, so intoxicating liquor will include a variety of products and goods, including alcoholic liquor for human consumption. When the legislature imposes a tax, it has to impose a tax with clarity, therefore , they identify the product itself, the alcoholic liquor for human consumption. When it comes to the regulatory power of the state, that regulatory power is couched in much wider terms than the taxing powers, for the reason, that when you regulate, you regulate both what is legal and what is illegal. So the idea of conferring powers on the States to regulate intoxicating liquor was to allow them to deal with after effects, social effects (SG supplements for CJI) and where the intoxication may not be due to alcohol but non-alcoholic intoxication also in that liquor."The reason states have a wider scope in regulating than in taxing comes down to the need for specificity in taxation. Regulation, on the other hand, covers a broader range of substances, including non-alcoholic ones that might still cause intoxication. This broad regulatory power is important because it lets states address all types of intoxication, not just those caused by alcohol.“… So the alcoholic content of the liquor may be one source of intoxication, but suppose they were to use the expression “ Alcoholic liquor” under Entry 8 List II, states may not have then the power to deal with things with are non-alcoholic but which are intoxicating nonetheless. So the regulatory domain of the states was widened as compared to the taxing because in taxing you always have to specify.” The SG's main contention was that the term ' Intoxicating Liquor” under Entry 8 List II(regulation powers to the state with regards to 'Intoxicating Liquor') limits the State's regulatory powers only to potable (drinkable alcohol) and not industrial or non-potable alcohol. The regulatory powers deemed under Entry 8 List II do not imply the State to make powers on the production of industrial alcohol. “ I pose this question to myself, that when you buy non-potable alcohol mainly ENA or any industrial alcohol, I hereby regulate, do not add more than 30% volume per water, or add 50% volume per water, that is not the regulation contemplated.” To which the CJI pondered, that in the reality of the alcohol market, as it stands today,...

Why Can't States Regulate Misuse Of Industrial Alcohol To Control Liquor Tragedies? Supreme Court Asks Union [Day 4]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Why Can't States Regulate Misuse Of Industrial Alcohol To Control Liquor Tragedies? Supreme Court Asks Union [Day 4]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers