Abstract

In 8:1 decision delivered on 23 October 2024, a nine‑judge Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud reversed the earlier interpretation in Synthetics & Chemicals (1990), broadening the scope of “intoxicating liquors” under Entry 8 of the State List to include industrial alcohol (including denatured and rectified spirits). The Court held that this broader definition enables state legislatures to regulate, licence, and levy fees—including on industrial alcohol—since it can potentially be converted into potable liquor, thereby impacting public health and state revenue The ruling emphasized harmonizing Entries 8 (State) and 52 (Union List), rejecting the notion that Parliament, via Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, had an exclusive domain over industrial alcohol Justice Nagarathna dissented, arguing that industrial alcohol—being non‑potable—should remain under Union control and that the doctrine of occupied field applies under Union List Entry 52. The decision marks a pivotal shift in federal power dynamics, empowering states to curb the illicit conversion of industrial alcohol, bolster public health safeguards, and augment revenue through excise fees.

Keywords