9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1083 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Rule 44-I inserted in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 by the said Amendment Rules Prevention of Food Adulteration (Eighth Amendment) Rules 2005 vide Notification No.GSR 670(E) dated 17.11.2005 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India is unconstitutional and invalid? Whether Rule 44-I is inconsistent with the Act and beyond the rule making power of the Central Government?
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. 2. Consistency of Rule 44-I with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the rule-making power of the Central Government. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Constitutionality of Rule 44-I Petitioners' Arguments: - Rule 44-I violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by denying the populace the right to choose between iodised and non-iodised salt. - The cost of iodised salt is significantly higher, adversely affecting the majority of the populace and benefiting a few multinational companies, thus violating Article 19(1)(g). - Non-iodised salt is not injurious to public health, and the Act does not empower the Central Government to ban its sale for human consumption. Respondent's Arguments: - The ban on non-iodised salt is in the interest of public health to prevent Iodine Deficiency Disorders (IDDs). - Excess iodine is excreted through urine, making iodised salt safe for everyone. - The rule is based on extensive research and recommendations from experts and national surveys. Court's Analysis: - The issue of whether iodised salt is beneficial or harmful is highly debated among experts. - Courts are not equipped to decide on technical issues relating to public health based on conflicting scientific opinions. - Judicial review of governmental policy is limited to checking for violations of fundamental rights or statutory provisions, not substituting the court's view for that of experts. - The policy underlying Rule 44-I is not arbitrary or unreasonable, nor does it violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution. Conclusion: - The challenge to the constitutionality of Rule 44-I fails. The rule is in the interest of public health and does not violate fundamental rights. Issue 2: Consistency of Rule 44-I with the Act and Rule-Making Power Petitioners' Arguments: - Rule 44-I is beyond the scope of the Act, which aims to prevent food adulteration, not to mandate the use of iodised salt. - The Act does not empower the Central Government to ban the sale of non-adulterated, non-injurious food items like common salt. Respondent's Arguments: - The rule is within the rule-making power under sections 7(iv), 23(1), and 23(1A)(f) of the Act. - The ban is in the interest of public health, which falls within the objectives of the Act. Court's Analysis: - Section 7(iv) allows the Food (Health) Authority to prohibit the sale of food in the interest of public health, but Rule 44-I is not a prohibition by the Food (Health) Authority. - Section 23(1A)(f) empowers the Central Government to prohibit the sale of substances injurious to health, but the Government admits that non-iodised salt is not injurious to health. - The general power under section 23(1) to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act does not extend to mandating the use of iodised salt, as it is unrelated to preventing food adulteration. Conclusion: - Rule 44-I is ultra vires the Act and beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. However, to protect public health, the Court allows the continuation of the ban for six months, during which the Central Government should review the policy and take appropriate legislative or other measures. Final Judgment: - Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, is declared ultra vires the Act and invalid. - The ban on non-iodised salt for human consumption is to continue for six months to allow the Central Government to review and take necessary measures. - If no action is taken within six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.
|
