STATE OF U.P. & ORS versus M/S LALTA PRASAD VAISH AND SONS

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1931 · Decided: 23-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

cites 54 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1931 : 2024 INSC 812
State of U.P. & Ors.  
v. 
M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish and sons
(Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2007)
23 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, Hrishikesh Roy, 
Abhay S Oka, B.V. Nagarathna,* J B Pardiwala, 
Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, 
Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issues which arise for adjudication in this reference pertain 
to the scope of the power of the State Legislatures under Entry 8 
and the meaning of the phrase “intoxicating liquor”. The question 
is whether “intoxicating liquor” in Entry 8 only includes potable 
alcohol, such as alcoholic beverages or also includes alcohol which 
is used in the production of other products; whether Entry 52 of 
List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution overrides Entry 8 
of List II; whether the expression ‘intoxicating liquors’ in Entry 8 of 
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution includes alcohol 
other than potable alcohol; and whether a notified order under 
Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 
is necessary for Parliament to occupy the field under Entry 33 of 
List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh 
Schedule  – Whether Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh 
Schedule to the Constitution is an industry-based entry or a  
product-based entry:
Held: [Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, for himself 
and for Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Manoj 
Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Augustine George 
Masih, JJ.] Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the 
Constitution is both an industry-based entry and a product-based 
entry – The words that follow the expression “that is to say” in the 
* Author
1932
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Entry are not exhaustive of its contents – It includes the regulation of 
everything from the raw materials to the consumption of ‘intoxicating 
liquor”. [Para 140(a)] – [Per B.V. Nagarathna, J. (dissenting)] 
Entry  8-List II deals with “intoxicating liquors” – The misuse, 
diversion or abuse of “industrial alcohol” as “intoxicating liquors” can 
also be controlled and prevented under Entry 8-List II by the State 
Legislatures having regard to Article 47 of the Constitution – It is 
also made clear that the Industries (Development and Regulation) 
Act 1951 which has been enacted by the Parliament by virtue of 
Entry 52-List I has taken control of “Fermentation Industries” as a 
scheduled industry – Such “Fermentation Industries” would exclude 
“intoxicating liquors”. [Para 33(a)]
Constitution of India – Entry 52 of List I, Entry 24 of List II – 
Whether Parliament can occupy the field of the entire industry 
merely by issuing a declaration under Entry 52 of List I:
Held: [Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, for himself 
and for Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Manoj 
Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Augustine 
George Masih, JJ.] Parliament cannot occupy the field of the 
entire industry merely by issuing a declaration under Entry 52 
of List I – The State Legislature’s competence under Entry 24 of 
List II is denuded only to the extent of the field covered by the law 
of Parliament under Entry 52 of List I. [Para 140(b)] – [Per B.V. 
Nagarathna, J. (dissenting)] Parliament can occupy the field of 
the entire industry by merely issuing a declaration under Entry 
52-List I and the State Legislature’s competence under Entry 24-
List II is denuded to the field of the entire industry and specifically 
to the extent of the field covered by the law of Parliament under 
Entry 52-List I. [Para 33(b)]
Constitution of India – Whether Parliament 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:
Held: [Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, for himself 
and for Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, J B Pardiwala, Manoj 
Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Augustine George 
Masih, JJ.] Parliament does not have the legislative competence 
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1933
State of U.P. & Ors. v. 
M/s Lalta Prasad Vaish and sons
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. [Para 140(c)] – [Per B.V. 
Nagarathna, J.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.