Legislation governs, not liquor.
The Supreme Court’s nine- member Constitution Bench ruled in favor of the countries, causing a blow for the central government. Only Justice B.V. Nagarathna differed from Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s verdict. Entry 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution allows countries to regulate the product, trade, and consumption of” intoxicating liquor.”
Invoking Entry 52 of the Union List, the Central government took over the countries‘ authority to regulate artificial alcohol, claiming that the capability to oversee diligence included the right to regulate artificial alcohol, as opposed to” intoxicating liquor.”
The case arose when multitudinous countries questioned the Central intervention as an violation on their powers. The court agreed with the countries and determined that artificial alcohol is also considered intoxicating.
The issue could have been settled by agreement between countries and the Centre, as it was a matter of interpretation. Nine Supreme Court judges wasted their precious time on a subject that could have been resolved by arbitration or concession. The problem stems from a lack of confidence between the central and state governments. numerous countries, particularly those governed bynon-BJP parties, believe the Centre aims to reduce their authority, mistaking India for a unitary rather than a civil system.
Governors in certain countries believe their primary responsibility is to condemn state administrations, and the Centre supports their conditioning rather than constraining them. These inclinations undermine the indigenous frame, which easily defines Central, State, and concurrent lists. They must be followed in order for the nation‘s benefit. The case does n’t reflect well on either the central government or the countries.
Abhishek Verma
