| Headnote |
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:r. 44-1 - Constitutionality of - r. 44-1 providing for restriction on sale of non-iodised common salt for human consumption - Writ petitions challenging the compulsory iodisation of sale for human consumption - Held: Government of India has taken note of scientific and medical inputs, research results and survey data to conclude that compulsory iodisation is the most effective and accepted method for elimination of iodine deficiency disorders and that consumption of iodised salt by persons not suffering from iodine deficiency will not adversely affect them - r.44-1 is stated to be in implementation of a policy decision regarding public health - The material on record is not sufficient to hold that the reason for the ban is erroneous and that r.44-1 is unreasonable and arbitrary - Therefore, the provision placing a ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption resulting in compulsory intake of iodised salt cannot be said to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 or injurious to the health of general populace and violative of Article 21 - There was also no material to show that any monopoly is sought to be created in favour of a chosen few companies or MNCs - Therefore, contention that Article 19(1)(g) is violated is also liable to be rejected -Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21. r.44-1- Whether r.44-1 is inconsistent with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Held: The Act contemplates prohibition of manufacture, storing, sale or distribution of any adulterated and mis-branded food. measures to prevent adulteration, and also provides for laying down food standards and prohibiting import of certain objectionable articles of food items - If an item of food is adulterated, or is itself an adulterant (used for adulteration), or unwholesome or injurious to health, a rule to prevent or prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale or distribution of such objectionable food item will be within the scope of the Act - If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade the people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the Act - The Act cannot be used to make a rule intended to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act - r. 44-1 is wholly outside the scope of the Act and is ultra vires the Act and therefore, not valid - To do complete justice between the parties in the interest of public health, in exercise of jurisdiction u!Article 142, the ban contained in r.44-1 for a period of six months is continued - Central Government given six months time to thoroughly review the compulsory iodisation policy (universal salt iodisation for human consumption) with reference to latest inputs and research data and if after such review, is of the view that universal iodisation scheme requires to be continued, bring appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law to continue the compulsory iodisation programme - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Object and purpose of the Act - Discussed. s. 7 whether a source of power to make r. 44-1 - Held: s. 7 G relates to prohibition of manufacture for sale, storage, sale or distribution of 'objectionable' food, that Is adulterated food, misbranded food, unlicensed food, food injurious to public health - s. 7 does not relate to rule making and is not a source of power to make r. 44-1 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r. 44-1. s.23(1A) - Whether r.44-1 is beyond the rule making power of the Central Government - Held: The Act vests the power of prohibiting the manufacture for sale, storage or distribution of any article of food in the interests of public health, in the Food (Health) Authority - Central Government cannot under its power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, take upon itself the power to prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale and distribution of any article of food - Clause (f) of s.23(1A) enables the central government to make rules prohibiting the sale .or defining the conditions of sale of any substance "which may be injurious to health when used as food" or restricting in any manner its use as an ingredient in the manufacture of any article of food or regulating by the issue of licence the manufacture or sale of any article of food - If use of common salt is not injurious to health, the question of making a rule prohibiting the sale of such a substance would not arise under clause (f) of s.23(1A) of the Act.s.23(1)- Whether s.23(1) provides the source of authority to make r.44-1- Held: No - s.23(1) provides that the central government may after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards and after previous publication by notification in the public gazette make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act- r. 44-1 is not a rule made or required to be made to carry out the provisions of the Act, having regard to its object and scheme - It has nothing to do with curbing of food adulteration or to suppress any social or economic mischiefAdministrative law: Judicial review - Universal salt iodisation - Restriction imposed on the sale of non-iodised common salt for human consumption by introducing ; amendment in.the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules -Scope of interference by the court - Held: The question whether there should be universal salt iodisation is a much A debated technical issue relating to. medical science - ·An informed decision in such matters can only be taken by experts after carrying out exhaustive surveys, trials, tests, scientific investigations and research - Courts are neither equipped, nor can be expected to decide about the need or absence of need for such universal salt iodisation on the basis of some articles and reports placed before it - Nor should courts attempt to substitute their own views as to what is wise, safe, prudent or proper, in relation to technical issues relating to public health in preference to those formulated by c persons said to possess technical expertise and rich experience.Constitution of India, 1950: Article 142 - Held: Vests unfettered independent jurisdiction to pass any order in public interest to do complete justice, if exercise of such jurisdiction is not contrary to any express provision of law - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r. 44-1 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. |
