Majority Opinion: CJI Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Augustine George Masih

Dissent: Justice Nagarathna

Introduction:

• The case revolves around the interpretation of the term "intoxicating liquor" within the framework of the Indian Constitution, specifically Entry 8 of List II and Entry 52 of List I, under the Seventh Schedule.

• The main issue was whether "intoxicating liquor" should only refer to consumable alcoholic beverages or whether it also includes industrial alcohol.

Facts of the Case:

• • The case involves the interpretation of "intoxicating liquor" within the legislative framework of the Constitution of India, under Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. This Entry grants State Legislatures the power to regulate intoxicating liquor, encompassing its production, possession, and sale.
• • The union in the exercise of its power under entry 52 List I, which empowers the Union to regulate ‘Industry’, enacted The Industries(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, where the Act empowered the Union to regulate ‘Industrial alcohol’.
• • The key issue was whether the term “intoxicating liquor” includes, only potable (consumable) alcohol or, also industrial alcohol used in various products.
• • The other questions were also involved, notably the judgment in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., which had mixed definitions and implications regarding "industrial alcohol" and "rectified spirit."
• • The appellants argued that the earlier decision wrongly mixed industrial alcohol with potable alcohol, and they urged the court to clarify the definitions and scope of regulatory powers under Entry 8 State List.
• • The Union contended, that it has control over industrial alcohol under Entry 52 Union List to the extent which allows for comprehensive regulation at all three stages ranging from production to trade and, that the State shall be excluded from regulating ‘industrial alcohol’ under the term “intoxicating Liquor”, including intoxicating liquor.

Issues:

1. Whether the interpretation of the term "intoxicating liquor", under Entry 8 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule also includes “industrial alcohol” or, would fall under Entry 52 of List I (Union List) which relates to the regulation and control of Union over the “industry”.

2. The extent of legislative competence of both State and Central Governments under the relevant Entries of the Constitution.

3. Whether the earlier decision in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. requires re-evaluation in light of the regulatory framework provided by the IDR Act and constitutional provisions.

Observation

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, observed that:

• • Entry 8 of List II is both industry-based and product-based, allowing for regulation that extends beyond just alcoholic beverages to include various forms of alcohol.
• • The Parliament cannot usurp the entire regulatory domain of intoxicating liquor merely through a declaration under Entry 52 of List I.
• • The term "intoxicating liquor" should be understood broadly, encompassing not only substances intended for human consumption but also those that may have intoxicating effects or health risks if misused.
• • The ruling of the Court in Tika Ramji was also questioned, but the Court found the Judgment to be not directly related to the issues involved in the present case, therefore did not consider the issue of validity of the judgment in this case.

Justice Nagarathna, dissenting, emphasized that industrial alcohol should not be classified as "intoxicating liquor" as it is not fit for human consumption. Her Ladyship argued for a more restrictive interpretation that aligns with the framers' intentions.

Implication:

• Regulation of intoxicating liquor:

• • This ruling clarifies that the term "intoxicating liquor" is not restricted to alcohol meant for human consumption, and includes ‘industrial alcohol’ when related to public health concerns.

• Overruling of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.:

• • The Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. ruling was overruled, clarifying that industrial alcohol can be considered under the broader definition of "intoxicating liquor" as it pertains to public health concerns.

• Legislative balance:

• • The provisions of the The Industries(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 should be interpreted as excluding the industry of "intoxicating liquor" from its scope.