Answer

The Centre-State relations in India, defined by the Constitution, allocate powers across Union, State, and Concurrent Lists. While excise and law enforcement primarily fall under State jurisdiction, overlapping responsibilities often lead to regulatory inefficiencies, especially evident in illicit liquor tragedies.

Impact of Division of Responsibilities on Regulatory Effectiveness

• Fragmented Excise Control: States regulate alcohol production and sale, but lack authority over industrial chemicals like methanol, leading to enforcement gaps.
  Example: In May 2025, Punjab’s Finance Minister urged the Centre to regulate methanol under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, after 21 deaths in Amritsar due to methanol-laced liquor.
• Inconsistent Enforcement Mechanisms: State excise departments and police often operate in silos, hindering coordinated action against illicit trade.
  Example: The Sangrur hooch tragedy in January 2025 highlighted failures in inter-departmental coordination, despite prior recommendations for integrated enforcement.
• Jurisdictional Overlaps: Law enforcement is a State subject, but crimes involving inter-state smuggling require Central intervention, leading to delays.
• Lack of Unified Data Systems: Absence of a centralized database hampers tracking of alcohol production, distribution, and consumption patterns across states.
  Example: The 2020 hooch tragedy that killed 120 people revealed the inability to trace illicit liquor sources due to fragmented data systems.
• Political-Administrative Disconnect: Political considerations often impede strict enforcement of excise laws, affecting regulatory outcomes.

Challenges in Division of Responsibilities

• Regulatory Grey Areas: Substances like methanol fall outside clear regulatory frameworks, creating enforcement loopholes.
  Example: Despite being a toxic industrial chemical, methanol’s unregulated status facilitates its misuse in spurious liquor, as seen in the Majitha incident.
• Inter-State Smuggling: Differing excise policies across states encourage smuggling, complicating enforcement.
  Example: States like Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have faced challenges in controlling illegal alcohol influx due to porous borders.
• Resource Constraints: State excise departments often lack adequate manpower and technology for effective monitoring.
  Example: The Sangrur committee report highlighted the need for enhanced enforcement capabilities, which remained unaddressed.
• Limited Central Oversight: The Centre’s role is often reactive rather than proactive in addressing excise-related issues.
  Example: Calls for central regulation of methanol have gained momentum only after repeated tragedies, indicating delayed responses.
• Political Interference: Local political dynamics can hinder strict action against illicit liquor networks.
  Example: The alleged political-police nexus in Punjab has been criticized for enabling illegal alcohol operations.

Way Forward

• Central Regulation of Hazardous Substances: Amend the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 to include substances like methanol under stringent control.
  Example: Punjab’s appeal to the Centre post-Amritsar tragedy underscores the urgency for such legislative action.
• Integrated Enforcement Task Forces: Establish joint Centre-State task forces for coordinated action against illicit liquor trade.
  Example: The Sarkaria Commission recommended collaborative mechanisms to enhance federal cooperation in law enforcement.
• Unified Data Management Systems: Develop a centralized database to monitor alcohol production, distribution, and consumption patterns.
• Capacity Building: Invest in training and equipping state excise departments with modern tools and technologies.
• Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Implement stricter penalties and fast-track courts for cases related to illicit liquor production and distribution.

The recurring illicit liquor tragedies highlight systemic flaws in India’s federal regulatory framework, particularly in excise and law enforcement domains. A synergized approach, combining central oversight with state-level execution, is imperative to safeguard public health and uphold the sanctity of cooperative federalism.

DOWNLOAD PDF