The Central government suffered a setback when a nine-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the states. Most significant is that the judgment, written by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, was dissented by only one judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna. At issue was Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which gave states the power to control the production, sale, and use of “intoxicating liquor.” The Central government, invoking Entry 52 of the Union List, usurped the states’ power to control industrial alcohol, arguing that the right to control industries included the right to control industrial alcohol, distinct from “intoxicating liquor.” The case arose when several states questioned the Central intervention as an abridgement of their powers. The court concurred with the states, ruling that industrial alcohol also fell within the purview of intoxicating alcohol.
Looking back, the issue was one of simple interpretation, which the states and the Centre could have resolved through negotiation. Precious time of nine apex court judges was wasted on a matter within the scope of arbitration or a negotiated settlement. At the root of the problem is the distrust between the Central and state governments. Many states, especially those ruled by the non-BJP parties, feel the Centre is intent on diminishing their powers, under the mistaken belief that India is more unitary than federal. Governors in such states seem to believe that their primary role is to needle the state governments, and instead of restraining them, the Centre appears to support their actions. Such tendencies weaken the constitutional system, where Central, state, and concurrent lists are clearly defined. They need to be adhered to in the best interests of the nation. The case does not show either the Centre or the states in a good light.
