NEW DELHI: Justice B V Nagarathna on Wednesday penned a lengthy opinion to disagree on all but one issue with the eight other judges on a bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, and said Parliament alone is competent to exercise regulatory powers over industrial alcohol while state legislatures can do so for ‘intoxicating liquor’.
The majority opinion authored by CJI Chandrachud, with concurrence of seven judges, overruled the 1989 judgment in Synthetics and Chemicals case by a seven-judge bench led by Justice Nagarathna’s father and then CJI E S Venkataramiah.Justice Nagarathna said the 1989 judgment merely needed a clarification, not overruling.
Justice Nagarathna will become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027. It will also mark the first time a daughter has followed her father to head the country’s judiciary. She will be CJI for 37 days from Sep 24 to Oct 29, 2027. Her father was CJI for six months from June 19 to November 17, 1989.
CJI Chandrachud, along with his father Justice Y V Chandrachud, who was CJI for the longest-ever tenure of seven-and-a-half years, are the first father-son duo to head the Indian judiciary. Chandrachud Jr has twice overruled his father’s judgments – the infamous Emergency-era ADM Jabalpur verdict in the Aug 2017 K Puttaswamy case and the 1985 judgment upholding validity of adultery as an offence in the Joseph Shine judgment in Sep 2018.
Justice Nagarathna agreed on one issue with the majority opinion, which said, “Parliament does not have the legislative competence to enact a law taking control of the industry of intoxicating liquor covered by Entry 8 of List II in exercise of the power under Article 246 read with Entry 52 of List I.”
Ending her agreement there, she said Synthetics and Chemicals judgment in respect of Section 18G of the Industrial Development and Regulation Act (IRDA) correctly stated the law. “Even with regard to ‘industrial alcohol’ as a product which falls within ‘fermentation industries’ in respect of which the Union has assumed control, in the absence of a notified order, the competence of the state to act under Entry 33 List III is denuded,” she said.
Justice Nagarathna said merely because ‘industrial alcohol’ can be easily manufactured into or misused to prepare ‘intoxicating liquor’, it would not grant states the competence to wholly regulate ‘industrial alcohol’.
“State legislatures only have legislative competence over what is ‘intoxicating liquor’ as a beverage. Therefore, the judgment in Synthetics and Chemicals is good law and was most correct in postulating that state legislatures will only have the competence to prevent misuse in interest of public health,” she said.