On Wednesday, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court took an important decision regarding industrial alcohol. The Constitution Bench of SC has overturned the decision of the Constitution Bench of 7 judges with a majority of 8:1. It said that the Center does not have regulatory power over the production of industrial alcohol. Let us tell you that both liquor and alcohol are generally considered the same thing but there is a difference in it. Drinkable alcohol is liquor. Another type of alcohol is used as raw material in industry.

This is called industrial alcohol. The central and state governments were face to face in the Supreme Court over the rights to this industry alcohol.

First let us tell you what is meant by industrial alcohol...  Industrial alcohol is an impure form of ethanol. It is usually used as a solvent in the industry. It is also called desaturated alcohol. Humans cannot use it. It is used in many industries including pharmaceutical industry and chemical industry. It is also used in cleaners, cosmetics, fuel, dye, ink etc. Supreme Court gave the verdict -  Actually the question before the court is whether the state government can also control industrial alcohol. And whether industrial alcohol should also be kept in the category of intoxication. A 9-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has given its verdict on this matter. The Center does not have regulatory power over production. Earlier on April 18, 2024, the decision on the matter was reserved in the Constitution Bench. The debate in this case lasted for 6 days. The petitioners say that after the implementation of GST, the right to tax industrial alcohol has become very important as it is an important source of income.

Earlier, in a case in 1990, the Supreme Court had defined intoxicating alcohol only as potable alcohol.

According to the rules, the states have the right to make rules regarding the production, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating alcohol. The states now want to know whether industrial alcohol can also be kept in this scope.

In 1989, a bench of 7 judges of the Supreme Court heard the case on industrial alcohol in detail and found that only the Central Government can impose tax on industrial alcohol (which is not potable).

The court considered liquor to be different from industrial alcohol and limited the jurisdiction of the state to regulating intoxicating alcohol only.

The court said that under the power that the state government has to regulate alcohol, it should also have the right to check industrial alcohol and prevent the production of liquor using it. But the Center did not accept the right to impose tax.

Later, this decision of the court was criticized saying that while writing its decision, the court did not keep in mind its own 1956 decision. Or rather, the order was given contrary to what was said in 1956.

In 1956, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court had approved the law of the Uttar Pradesh government under which the state government gave itself the right to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane.

The Center considered this a violation of the 1951 law. The Center argued that the provision of Section 18-G of the law gives the Center the exclusive right to regulate and make laws related to the sugar industry. In such a situation, the state government cannot take it in its hands.

However, the Center's argument did not work in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upheld the law of the state government.

Then the Supreme Court also said that the provision of 18G does not cover everything and despite this, the state government has the right to make laws on matters related to the sugar industry.

The 1989 decision came and went. But when some legal scholars compared this decision with the 1989 Supreme Court decision, they found that there was a fundamental contradiction in both these decisions.