NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the right of states to regulate industrial alcohol, delivering an 8:1 majority judgment that reshapes the legal landscape surrounding alcohol control. The ruling, authored by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, interprets the term “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 of the State List of the Constitution as encompassing industrial alcohol.
The case stemmed from a conflict between several states and the central government, which had asserted exclusive control over industrial alcohol under Entry 52 of the Union List. This entry gives the Centre power over industries deemed essential for public interest. However, states like Kerala, Maharashtra, and Punjab argued that they must be allowed to regulate industrial alcohol to prevent its misuse for human consumption, particularly in light of past liquor tragedies.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court halts demolition drive pending further review
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the need for states to protect public health, highlighting that “the State is the guardian of public health.” He noted that the central government, as a “disconnected entity,” could not adequately address local issues related to industrial alcohol. He questioned why states should not have the authority to enact regulations that could prevent industrial alcohol from being converted into harmful intoxicating liquor.
The ruling underscores the tension between state and central powers regarding taxation, manufacturing, and regulation of alcohol. The Centre had claimed that industrial alcohol fell solely under its jurisdiction, asserting that the states’ powers were limited to intoxicating liquors meant for human consumption. However, the Supreme Court found that Entry 8 should be interpreted broadly to include all alcoholic substances that could pose health risks.
ALSO READ: Commonwealth Games 2026: Cricket, Hockey, Wrestling among excluded sports
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the lone dissenter, argued that industrial alcohol should not be classified under the term “intoxicating liquor.” She maintained that states lacked the legislative competence to regulate it.
This ruling not only clarifies the scope of state authority but also sets a precedent for future conflicts between state and central powers in India’s federal structure, particularly regarding public health and safety regulations.