SC questions Centre’s rigid position on control over industrial alcohol

Subject: Polity

Section: Federalism

Context:

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court raised questions about the Central Government’s insistence on maintaining exclusive control over industrial alcohol, thereby not allowing States the authority to regulate its misuse, including its illegal conversion to consumable liquor.

Details:

This situation raises significant public health concerns due to the potential for industrial alcohol being diverted for human consumption, leading to health tragedies.
The bench is examining the conflict between the Union and States regarding the authority to tax, manufacture, and produce alcohol.
The discussion also touched on the States’ authority over “intoxicating liquors” fit for human consumption, covered under Entry 8 of the State List, and the implications of a rigid classification that could limit state control over the illegal trade of industrial alcohol converted to consumable liquor.
The contention revolves around the balance of power between the Union and the States in managing the production, distribution, and regulation of industrial alcohol vis-à-vis public health concerns.

Key facts:

The subject, ‘Industrial alcohol’, is under Entry 52 of the Union List.
- At present, only the Centre has the authority to tax, manufacture, and produce industrial alcohol.
- The Centre has complete control over such industries. Centre argues that control over industrial alcohol is retained in the public interest, ensuring equitable resource distribution across the country.
The subject, ‘Intoxicating liquors’ is under Entry 8 of the State List.