New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Center why states, being the guardians of citizens’ health, cannot regulate and levy fees on industrial alcohol to ensure that it is not misused.

A nine-judge Constitution bench is examining the issue of overlapping powers between the Center and states in the production, manufacturing, supply and regulation of industrial alcohol.

“We are all aware of the tragedy of alcoholism and states are generally concerned about the health of their citizens. Why do states not have the power to regulate? If they can regulate to ensure that there is no abuse, then any fee can be levied,” a bench headed by Chief Justice D Chandrachud asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre.

After the seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled against the states, the judges were flooded with petitions.

The case was brought before a nine-judge bench in 2010 after a seven-judge bench ruled in 1997 that the Center had regulatory authority over industrial alcohol production.

A seven-judge bench observed in 1990 that the Union, through the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, “clearly intends to occupy” legislative competence on the subject and therefore Section 33 cannot empower the state governments.

The nine-judge Constitution bench asked Mr. Mehta why states could not establish a regulatory mechanism for industrial alcohol.

“There is an area. Denatured spirits can be converted into intoxicating liquor by some means. There is potential for abuse there. Can we deny that the state has regulatory powers to ensure that abuse does not occur? The Center is a national agency “As an entity from the state, you have no control over what happens in a district or collection,” the judge said.

“Hypothetically, there is a significant potential for denatured spirits to be misused for consumption.” The state is right to be concerned as a guardian of health, and it can put regulations in place to ensure that misuse does not occur. Why should we take away their power to impose fees for this purpose,” it asked.

Referring to the alcohol tragedy in the country, it said: “Can’t the state say that this happened on my territory and may cause law and order problems?”

Mr. Mehta replied that under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, regulation of industrial alcohol lies with the Center and only the Union has the legislative power to levy excise duty on alcohol unfit for human consumption.

Opening arguments before the nine-judge bench, the legal officer said the interpretation given by the court would not only affect industrial alcohol, the sole subject of contention by the petitioners, but also the alcohol contained in Schedule I of the Industrial Regulation and Development Act. Every Industry, 1951.

“There are some industries that have always been considered necessary to remain under central control if it is in the national interest. From the outset of the 52-item list, the central government has had the power to take action within its jurisdiction to control such industries.

“Under Clause 52 of List I, Parliament is fully empowered to control everything in its wisdom, the requirements of a particular industry and to achieve the stated objectives of IDRA when it is satisfied that the activities of one or more industries affect the State overall,” Mehta said Mr.

The bench also comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, BV Nagarathna, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih.

Mr. Mehta submitted that if the requirements of a particular industry should be controlled by economic considerations of all-India imports and no state could be allowed to decide on the basis of its provincial interests, then the Union also had the power to control the requirements of that industry.

“First of all, it is to be made clear that this reference does not deal with the entry of tax on alcohol, whether consumed or not. None of the issues mentioned in the reference deal with the same issue, nor is the petitioner’s submission on taxation .Powers of Parliament vis-à-vis state legislatures,” Mr. Mehta said.

The hearing has not reached a conclusion and will resume on April 16.

Asserting its right to regulate industrial alcohol, the Center had earlier told the Supreme Court that the legislative power to levy excise duty on alcohol unfit for human consumption but used for industrial purposes lies solely with Parliament.

Attorney General R Venkataramani said a “conscious decision” had been taken to treat alcoholic beverages fit for human consumption separately, with the former falling under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and alcoholic beverages not fit for human consumption. The latter falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. Federal Legislature.

Prior to this, the BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh and the Trinamool Congress-ruled West Bengal had agreed in the Supreme Court, claiming that the legislative power given to states to regulate industrial alcohol was unlimited and complete, beyond the jurisdiction of the center.

Senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, told the court that liquor has always been within the ambit of state legislation and the Center does not have any jurisdiction over industrial alcohol.

He said excise duty, liquor and spirits have always been part of the state’s jurisdiction, including industrial alcohol.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)