Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, HRISHIKESH ROY, ABHAY S. OKA, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, UJJAL BHUYAN, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
State of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Lalta Prasad Vaish – Respondent
Key Points: - Entry 8, List II is interpreted to cover intoxicating liquors broadly, including non-potable alcohol and materials used in fermentation industries; see overruled Synthetics (7J) reasoning and current interpretation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - IDRA Section 2 and Item 26 (Fermentation Industries) place control of certain industries in the Union; the 2016 amendment excludes potable alcohol from Item 26, affecting the demarcation between Union and State powers (!) (!) (!) . - Section 18G of IDRA empowers Central regulation of scheduled industries; the Court discusses whether occupancy of the field requires a notified order and how it impacts Entry 33, List III and the occupied field doctrine (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment outlines the doctrine of occupied field and its effect on State competence to legislate under Entry 33, List III when Parliament has declared control over a scheduled industry (!) (!) . - The Government of India’s arguments emphasize a harmonized federal balance and the special status of Entry 52 vs Entry 8; prior precedents like Calcutta Gas Company, McDowell, Bihar Distillery, Synthetics are discussed and overruled/modified in view of the nine-judge bench’s conclusions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The conclusions state Entry 8 List II is both industry-based and product-based, cannot be entirely overridden by Entry 52, and that Parliament cannot take over the field of intoxicating liquors under IDRA; states retain competence over intoxicating liquors, with regulation of industrial alcohol limited to preventing misuse (!) (!) (!) . - The 2016 amendment clarifies the demarcation by excluding potable alcohol from Fermentation Industries, placing non-potable alcohol under Union control; but intoxicating liquors for human consumption remain State domain (!) (!) . - The judgment tests the three-lists framework, aiming to preserve federal balance while allowing central regulation in certain critical industries; repugnancy/occupied-field concepts govern conflicts between Union and State laws (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
Table of Contents
| A. Background |
| i. Relevant constitutional provisions |
| ii. The judgment in Synthetics (7J) |
| iii. The aftermath of Synthetics (7J) |
| iv. The Reference Order(s) |
| B. Submission |
| i. Appellants’ submissions |
| ii. Respondent’s submissions |
| C. The distinction between potable and non-potable alcohol |
| D. Issues |
| E. Analysis |
| i. The constitutional distribution of legislative power |
| ii. Scheme of legislative entries |
| iii. The field covered by Entry 52 of List I and Entry 8 of List II |
| a. The scope of Entry 8 |
| I. The meaning of ‘that is to say’ |
| II. Product or industry based entry |
| b. Scope of Entry 52 of List I: the absence of “to the extent to which” 57 |
| c. Reconciling the potential overlap between Entry 52 of List I and Entry 8 of List II 63 |
| iv. Scope of Entry 8: Meaning of ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
| a. Precedent on the interpretation of ‘intoxicating liquor’: exploring FN Balsara and Southern Pharmaceuticals |
| b. The legal import of ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
| c. Evolution of the legislative lists on ‘intoxicating liquor’ |
|
|
Alcohol is inherently a noxious substance that is prone to misuse affecting public health at large – Entry 8 covers alcohol that could be used noxiously to detriment of public health – State Legislat....
State is only empowered to levy excise duty on alcoholic liquor for human consumption – State has no power to levy excise duty on wastage of liquor after distillation.
The appellant does not require a central license under the Industries Act for manufacturing potable alcohol as it does not qualify as an industrial undertaking.
The State had no legislative competence to levy Excise Duty on rectified spirit not fit for human consumption, and the imposition of Excise Duty on presumptive production of liquor was ultra vires to....
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Vashistha Narayan Dubey For the Respondent : Manish Nair
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
