# ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [2011] 8 S.C.R. 680
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-07-04
- **Bench:** R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/academy-of-nutrition-improvement-and-ors-v-union-of-india-27858
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
c
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,
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
680
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
681
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
prohibition of manufacture, storing, sale or distribution of any A
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
B
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, c
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
0
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 E
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.
F
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
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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 - C

## Text

_Characters 0–39,707 of 82,147. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39707 for what follows._

A
B
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 680
ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (C) No. 80 of 2006)
JULY 4, 2011
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955:
c
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,
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
680
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
681
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
prohibition of manufacture, storing, sale or distribution of any A
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
B
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, c
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
0
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 E
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.
F
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
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
C 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
D 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
E
· 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
· F 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
G economic mischief
Administrative 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 -
H Scope of interference by the court - Held: The question
1
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
683.
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
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 B
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
D
is not contrary to any express provision of law - Prevention
of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - r. 44-1 - Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Rule 44-1 was inserted in the Prevention of Food
E
Adulteration Rules, 1955 by way of amendment to tho
Rules. The said· rule imposed restriction on the sale of
non-iodised common salt for human consumption.
The lnstnnt writ petitions were flied by nongovernmental organizations representing consumers,
F
salt producers, medical experts, academics etc. opposing
ths compulsory lodlsetlon of salt for human consumption.
According to the petitioners, constant use of Iodised salt
on account of compulsory lodlsation would lead to Iodine
Induced hyper thyroldl&m with Increased chances of G
. death; that when tho entire populace do not need Iodised
salt, It le unfair and unjust to deny them the right to
choose bt'~veen iodised salt and non-iodised salt and,
therefore, Rule 44-1 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India which entitles every person to have
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A free choice in regard to consumption of food; that the
coot of Iodised salt being several times more than the
cost of non-Iodised salt, the majority of the populace are
adversely affected by the rule requiring compulsory
lodisation; that the compulsory use of iodised salt only
B helped a few multi-national companies which had the
monopoly In the manufacture of Iodised salt and that
many small scale and local producers of salt were
adversely affected by creation of such monopoly,
therefore, Rule 44·1 Is violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the
C Constitution as It affected the fundamental rights of small
and medium scale manufacturer to carry on their
business In salt
D
Partly allowing the writ petition and disposing of the
transferred petitions, the Court
~ HELD: 1.1. There Is some material to support the
contention of the petitioners that around 90% of the
populace do not need iodised salt and that consumption
of excess iodine may have some adverse effects. On the
E other hand there is also considerable material for the
view that compulsory iodisation is also necessary to
prevent IDDs in about 10% (or more) of the populace and
the consumption of iodised salt by the remaining 90%
who do not require it, may not be injurious to their health
F as excess iodine Is easily excreted. The question whether
·there should be unlv~rsal salt lodlsatlon Is a much
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,
G toste, scientific Investigations and research. Courts are
neither equipped, nor can be expected to decide about
tho need or absence of need for such universal salt
lodlsatlon on the basis of some articles and reports
placed before It. Courts should not rush In where even
aclentJsts and medical experts are careful to tread. Tho
H
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
685
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
rule of prudence Is that courts will be reluctant to Interfere A
with pollcy decisions taken by the Government, In
. matters of public health, after collecting and analysing
Inputs from surveys and research. Nor wlll courts attempt
to substitute tholr own views as to what Is wise, safe,
prudent or proper, In relation to technical Issues relating s
to public health In preference to those formulated by
persons said to possess technical expertise and ·rich
experience. [Para 14] [706-E-H; 707-A-C]
Medical Physiology by Author C. Guyton & John£. Hall C
- 1996 Edition - referred to.
1.2. The petitioners' challenge to constltutlonallty of
the Impugned amendment Is bound to fail. Courts are not
equipped to decide the medical Issue relating to public
health, as to whether compulsory iodisation should be D
replaced by voluntary lodisation as has been done in
some developed countries, so that both common salt and
iodised salt are available In the market and only those
10% who are deficient in Iodine can opt for iodised salt.
The Government of India has taken note of scientific and e:
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 F
edversoly affect them. Rule 44·1 Is stated to be In
implemontatlon of a policy decision regarding public
health. The material placed by tho petitioners Is not
sufficient to hold that tho reason for the ban Is erroneous
and that Rulo 44·1 Is unreasonable and arbitrary. G
Therefore, the contontlon that the provision pl~clng a ban
on sale of non-Iodised salt for human consumption
rosultlng In compulsory Intake of Iodised salt, Is arbitrary
and vlolatlve of Article 14 or Injurious to tho health of
general populace and therefore violative of Article 21 Is H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 8 S.C.R.
A rejected. The use of common salt (non-Iodised salt) for
Industrial and commercial use Is not prohibited. The ban
operates only in regard to use of common salt for human
consumption. There was also no material to show that
any monopoly is sought to be created in favour of a
·s chosen few companies or MNCs. In the circumstances,
the contention that Article 19(1)(g) Is violated is liable to
be rejected. [Para 16) [708-B-G]
Report dated 6.2.2004 of the Core Advisory Group;
Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition" 2004
C Edition, Report of a WHO Expert Consultation: "Salt as a
Vehicle for Fortification" (2007) p. 7; Lewis E Braverman in
his article "Adequate iodine intake - the good far outweighs
the bad", [European Journal of Endocrinology, 1998, Vol. 139
pages 14-15; Rajan Shankar and C.S.Pandav, in "Ban on
0
Sale of Non-iodized Salt for Human Consumption: A step in
the right direction" (The National Medical Journal of India, Vol.
18, No.4, 2005 p. 169 at p. 170; Modem Nutrition in Health
and Development" edited by M. Shike and others [Lippincott,
E
Williams, & Wilknis Publishers, 2006, p.310 - referred to.
2.1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act
contemplates prohibition of manufacture, storing, sale or
distribution of any adulterated and mis-branded food,
measures to prevent adulteration, and also provides for
F laying down food standards and prohibiting import of
certain objectionable articles of food Items. The object
and purpose of the Act Is to eliminate the danger to
human life from the sale of adulterated food and to
ensure that what Is sold is wholesome food. In other
words, if an Item of food Is adulterated, or Is Itself nn
G 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
Such prohibition will be valid even in regard to incidental
IH
•
•
ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
687
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
items such as misbranded food Items and unlicensed
A
food Items (where licence Is required). But where an Item
of food (used In the composition or preparation of human
food and used as a flavouring) is in Its natural form and
Is unadulterated and is not injurious to health, a rule
cannot be made under the provisions of the Act to ban
B
the manufacture for sale, storage or sale of such food
Item on the ground such ban will ensure that the
populace will use a medicated form of such food, which
will benefit a section of the populace. Making available
m!3dlcines or medicinal preparations to Improve public c
health is not the object 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
D
be used to make a rule intended to achieve an object
wholly unrelc:tad to the Act. The good intention of the rule
making authority is not therefore sufficient to save the
rule. Rule 44-1 is wholly outside the scope of the Act.
[Paras 18, 22] [709-D; 715-F-H; 716-A-D]
Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain
2007 (4) SCC 737: 2007 (5) SCR 7; Municipal Corporation
of Delhi. v. Kacheroo Mal 1976(1) SCC 412: 1976 (2) SCR
E
1; Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi vs. State of Gujarat
1989 (1) SCC 420: 1989 (1) SCR 138; State of Kamataka
F
vs. H .. Ganesh Karnath 1983(2) SCC 402; Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay), Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India 1985 (1)
SCC 641: 1985 (2) SCR 287;General Officer Commandingin-Chief vs. Dr.Subhash Chandra Yadav 1988 (2) SCC 351:
1988 (3) SCR 62; Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
G
Association vs. Union of India 1989 (4) SCC 187: 1989 (3)
SCR 488; Addi. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration
vs. Siri Ram 2000 (5) sec 451: 2000 (3) SCR 1019;
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar
Legislative Council & Ors. 2004 (8) SCC 747: 2004 (5) Suppl.
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A SCR 692; J. K. Industries vs.Union of India 2007 (13) SCC
673: 2007 (12) SCR 136 - relied on.
2.2. Section 7 does not relate to rule making. It relates
to prohibition of manufacture for sale, storage, sale or
8 dlstributlor; of 'objectionable' food, that is adulterated
food, misbranded food, unlicensed food, food Injurious
to public health. Section 7(iv) provides that no person
shall manufacture for sale, store, sell or distribute any
article of food, the sale of which is for the time being
prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the Interest
C of public health. Rule 44-1 is not a prohibition by the Food
(Health) Authority In the Interest of public health. The
Food (Health) Authority refers to the Director of Medical
and Health Services or the Chief Officer In-charge of the
Health Administration in a State as also any officer
D empowered by the Central Government or the State
Government by notification in the official gazette to
exercise the power and perform the duties of the Food
(Health) Authority with respect to such local area as may
be specified in such notification. Section 7(iv) is of no
E assistance to decide upon the validity of rule 44·1, nor can
it be a source of power to make rule 44-1. [Para 23] [716·
H; 717-A]
2.3. If the Act vests the power of prohibiting the
F manufacture for sale, storage or distribution of any article
of food In the Interests of publlc health, In the Food
(Health) Authority, the 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
G manufacture for sale, storage, sale and distribution of any
article of food. Clause (f) of section 23(1A) enables the
central government to make rules prohibiting the sale or
defining the conditions of sale of any oubstance "which
may be injurious to health when used as food" or restricting
In any manner Its use as an Ingredient in the manufacture
H
•
•
ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
689
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
of any article of food or regulating by the issue of licence
A
the manufacture or sale of any article of food. It Is the
specific case of the respondent that the use of nonIodized salt Is not Injurious to health. Section 23(1A)(f}
empowers making a rule to prohibit sale only if the
substance is injurious to health when used as food. If B
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 section 23(1A) of the
Act. [Paras 24, 25) [717-B-C; 717-H; 718-A-B, G-H]
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra C
Pradesh 1966 (2)SCR 172 - relied on.
2.4. Section 23(1) provides that the central
government may after consultation with the Central
Committee for Food Standards (constituted under section
D
3 of the Act) and after previous publication by notification
in the public gazette make rules to carry out the provisions
of the Act. Statutes delegating the power to make rules
follow a standard pattern. The relevant section would first
contain a provision granting the power to make rules to
E
the delegate in general terms, by using the words 'to carry
out the provisions of this Act' or 'to carry out the
purposes of this Act'. This is usually followed by another
sub-section enumerating the matters/areas in regard to
which specific power is delegated by using the words 'in
F
particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any
of the following matters." Interpreting such provisions,
this Court in a number of decisions has held that where
power is conferred to make subordinate legislation in G
general terms, the subsequent particularisation of the
matters/topics has to. be construed as merely illustrative
and not limiting the scope of the general power.
Consequently, even if the specific enumerated topics in
section 23(1A) may not empower the Central Government H
•
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011) 8 S.C.R.
A to make the impugned rule (Rule 44·1), making of the Rule
can be jus.tlfied with reference to the general power
conferred o·n th.e ,central government under section 23(1 ),
•
provided the rule does not travel beyond the scope of the
Act. But even a general power to make rules or
B regulations for carrying out or giving effect to the Act, Is
strictly ancillary In nature and cannot enable the authority
on whom the power is conferred to extend the scope of
general operation of the Act. Therefore, such a power
"will not support attempts to widen the purposes of the
c Act, to add new and different means to carrying them out,
to depart from or vary its terms. Rule 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
0 suppress any social or economic mischief. [Para 26)
[719-A-H; 720-A]
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G. P.
Singh 12th Editionpage 1009 - referred to.
E
Shanahan v. Scott 1957 (96) CLR 245; Utah
Construction v. Pataky 1965 (3) All ER 650 - referred to.
2.5. There is no material to show that universal salt
iodlsation will be injurious to public health (that Is to the
majority of populace who do not suffer from Iodine
F deficiency). But Rule 44-1 Is ultra vlres the Act and
therefore, not valid. The result would be that the ban on
sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be
raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.
Therefore, the Central Government should have at least
G 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 vlew that
universal lodisation scheme requires to be continued,
H bring appropriate legislation or other measures In
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
691
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA
accordance with law to continue the compulsory A
lodisation programme. [Para 27] [720-B-E]
3. Article 142 of the Constitution vests unfettered
Independent jurisdiction to pass any order in public
Interest to do complete justice, If exercise of such
jurisdiction is not be contrary to any express provision
B
of law. To do complete justice between the parties in the
· interest of public health, In exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution, the ban contained in Rule
44-1 for a period of six months is continued. The central
government may within that period review the C
compulsory lodisation programme and If It decides to
continue, may Introduce appropriate legislative or other
measures. However, If it fails to take any action within the
expiry of six months from today, Rule 44-1 shall cease to
operate. Thus, Rule 44-1 of the Prevention of Food D
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (inserted by Prevention of Food
Adulteration (Eighth Amendment) Rules 2005) Is beyond
the rule-making power of the Central Government and
ultra vires the Act subject to the continuation of the ban
· contained in Rule 44-1 for a period of six months in terms
E
of the previous paragraph. [Paras 28-30] [720-F; 722-BE]
Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India 1998
(4) SCC 409:1998 (2) SCR 795; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.
F
Rajesh Ranjan 2005 (3)SCC 284 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2007 (5) SCR 7
relied on
Para 14
1976 (2) SCR 1
relied on
Para 19
G
1989 (1) SCR 138
relied on
Para 19
1985 (2) SCR 287
relied on
Para 20
1988 (3) SCR 62
relied on
Para 20
H
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A
1989 (3) SCR 488
relied on
Para 20
2000 (3) SCR 1019
relled on
Para 20
2004 (5 ) Suppl. SCR 692relled on
Para 20
B
2007 (12 ) SCR 136
relied on
Para 20
1966 (2) SCR 172
relied on
Para 24
1957 (96) CLR 245
relied on
Para 26
1965 (3) All ER 650
relied on
Para 26
c
1998 (2) SCR 795
relied on
Para 28
2005 (3) sec 284
relied on
Para 29
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
D 80 of 2006.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
TC (C) No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2011 And
E TC (C) No. 11 of 2002 & WP (C) No. 175 of 2006 ..
Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Balraj Dewan, Vishwajit Singh,
Himanshu Munshi for the Appellants.
F
Naresh Kaushik, Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Sushma
Suri, B.B. Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioners have sought a
G declaration that the 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. The
grievance is primarily in regard to Rule 44-1 inserted in the
H Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 by the said
•
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
693
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Amendment Rules. The said Rule reads as follows·:
A
"44 I. Restriction on sale of common salt - No person
shall sell or offer to expose for sale or have in his premises
for the purpose of sale, the common salt, for direct human
consumption unless the same is iodized :
8
Provided that common salt may be sold or exposed for
sale or stores for sale for iodization, iron fortification,
animal use, preservation, manufacturing medicines, and
industrial use, under proper label declarations, as specified
under clause (22) of sub-rule (zzz) of rule 42. •
C
The incidental challenge is to consequential amendments
to the Rules by insertion of Rule 43(zzz)(22) which reads as
under:
"Rule 43(zzz)(22). Every container or package of common
D
sale shall bear the following label, namely :
Common Salt for lodisation/lron fortification/Animal Use/
Preservation/Medicine/Industrial Use*
*Strike out whichever is not applicable
2. The Government of India has been promoting the use
E
of iodised salt in place of common salt, for human consumption,
since 1962 by launching a centrally assisted programme for
supplying iodised salt in place of common salt with the object
F
of controlling and reducing various Iodine Deficiency Disorders
including Goitre (for short 'IDDs'). In April, 1992, the Central
Committee for Food Standards (CCFS), a statutory body
providing technical advice to the Government on food-related
matters, approved the proposal for mandatory iodisation of salt,
G
provided such mandatory iodisation was done only in respect
of edible salt for direct human consumption and not in regard
to salt meant for commercial use by the food industry. In
pursuance of it, Government of India took a decision to iodise
the entire edible salt for direct human consumption in the
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A country. As a consequence, the state governments were
advised to implement the compulsory iodization of salt within
their own territories by placing suitable restrictions on the
marketing and sale of non-iodised salt for direct human
consumption by invoking the provisions of section 7(iv) of the
a Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short).
Based on such advice, various States took action by issuing
notifications prohibiting/restricting the sale of non-iodised salt.
Subsequently, with the object of uniformly applying the ban
throughout the country, the Central Government inserted Rule
c 44-H in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
('Rules' for short), by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Tenth
Amendment) Rules 1997 (vide notification dated 27.11.1997),
banning the sale of non-iodised common salt for direct human
consumption. The said Rule 44-H came into effect on
0 27.5.1998. It is stated that by then, almost all the States (except
Kerala, Maharashtra and parts of Andhra Pradesh) had
imposed ban or restrictions on sale of non-iodised salt for
human consumption.
3. The said amendment inserting Rule 44-H prohibiting the
E sale of non-iodised salt for direct human consumption was
reviewed by the Central Government. On such review, it came
to the conclusion that such a restriction could be more
effectively exercised by the State Governments in regard to the
respective areas within their jurisdiction, keeping in view the
F nutritional profiles of the populace in different parts of the
respective state, whereas such a flexibility was not available
as a result of the Central Government making the rule (Rule
44H) mandating the use of iodised salt in the entire country,
without any option or choice. In view of it, the Central
G Government omitted Rule 44H from the Rules with effect from
30.9.2000, by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fifth
Amendment) Rules 2000 (vide notification dated 13.9.2000),
so that more informed decisions could be taken by the
respective State Governments on the question whether a
H provision should be made for sale of only iodised salt for
•
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
695
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
direction human consumption. It was felt that by providing such
A
option to the state governments, there would be no unnecessary
compulsion to use iodised salt in areas where iodine deficiency
disorders were not prevalent. The Central Government also
proposed to play a greater role in enhancing the awareness
about the benefits of iodised salt and monitor the impact of the
B
salt iodisation programme in the country.
4. The said omission of Rule 44-H was challenged by
'Common Cause', an NGO, in Writ Petition (C) No.525of2000
in this Court. During the pendency of W.P. (C) No.525 of 2000, C
a Core Advisory Group on Public Health & Human Rights,
National Human Rights Commission, was required to critically
apprise the evidence available on the public health
consequences arising from consumption of non-iodized salt by
the populace. The said Core Advisory Group submitted a
report dated 6.2.2004 advising that universal iodisation of salt · D
is a public health need which should be implemented throughout
the country without any relaxation in the ban on sale of noniodised salt. On a survey of 324 districts in 28 States and 7
Union Territories, 263 districts were found to be endemic for
IDDs, (that is, where prevalence of IDDs was found in more than
E
10% of the population) and no state or Union Territory was free
from IDDs. It was also found that iodine deficiency caused a
wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from Goitre to Cretinism,
apart from causing disorders like still-birth, abortion, dwarfism,
eye-squint, mental retardation, lower IQ, deaf-mutism and
F
neuromotor defects. It was found that the simplest and most
effective and inexpensive method of preventing and controlling
IDDs was to make up the iodine deficiency by iodising the
common salt to ensure that through consumption of iodised salt,
not less than 150 micro grams of iodine is made available to G
each person per day. In view of the said report, the Central
Government again introduced a ban on sale of non-iodised
common salt for human consumption by inserting Rule 44-1, by
way of amendment to the Rules, vide notification dated
17.11.2005. On such re-introduction of the ban, WP [CJ No.525 H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
A of 2000 challenging the omission of Rule 44H was disposed
of, as having become infructuous.
5. The petitioners in these writ petitions are nongovernmental organisations representing consumers, salt
8
producers, medical experts, academics, etc. They oppose
compulsory iodisation of salt for human consumption. According
to them, goitre and other IDDs occur not only in areas deficient
in iodine but also in areas where (i) water supply is
contaminated, (ii) water is hard, (iii) poor hygiene prevails on
account of poverty, (iv) foods contain iodine inhibitory
C (goitrogenic) substances; (v) functioning of thyroid gland is
improper; and (vi) consumption of processed and preserved
food is excessive. According to them, even after two decades
of use of iodised salt in several areas, incidence of goitre had
increased sharply. It is submitted that the international
D experience, particularly in western countries, is to move from
compulsory iodisation regime to voluntary need-based
iodisation regime, so that only those having iodine deficiency
could use iodised salt. It is submitted that when people who do
not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt
E regularly, there is risk of many of them developing
complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase
in iodine levels. According to the petitioners, constant use of
iodised salt on account of compulsory iodisation, would lead
to iodine-induced hyper-thyroidism with increased chances of
F death. It is contended that while iodised salt would help to
make up the iodine deficiency in about 10% of the populace,
it would adversely affect the health of remaining 90% of the
populace who have no deficiency in iodine levels.
G
5.1) The petitioners submit that when the entire populace
do not need iodised salt, it is unfair and unjust to deny them
the right to choose between iodised salt and non-iodised salt.
It is submitted that Rule 44-1 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution, whic~ entitle every person to have free choice in
regard to consumption of food.
H
•
• ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
697
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
5.2) The petitioners submit that the cost of iodised salt A
being several times more than the cost of non-iodised salt, the
majority of the populace were adversely affected by the rule
requiring compulsory iodisation. It is contended that the
compulsory use of iodised salt only helped a few multi-national
companies (MNCs) which had the monopoly in the manufacture
B
of iodised salt. It is submitted that many small scale and local
producers of salt were adversely affected by creation of such
monopoly. The petitioners therefore contend that Rule 44-1 is
violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution, as it affects the
fundamental ri9ht of small and medium scale manufacturers to c
carry on their business in salt,..
5.3) It was lastly contended by the petitioners that noniodised salt was not injurious to public health and consequently,
the provisions of the Act do not enable the Central Government 0
to make a rule banning the sale of common salt (non-iodised
salt) for human consumption. The petitioners submit that
common salt is an unadulterated article used as an ingredient
in food and Rule 44-1 imposing a ban on its sale for human
consumption does not conform to, and is inconsistent with the
object of the statute under which it is made.
E
6. Respondent has resisted the petitions by referring to the
circumstances (mentioned in para 4 above) which necessitated
the insertion of Rule 44-1 by way of amendment to the Rules. It
was contended that the ban on sale of common salt for human
F
consumption was imposed in the interest of public health, and
does not violate either Article 14 or 21 of the Constitution. It is
submitted that IDDs are caused by lack of iodine in diet; that
majority of iodine deficiency disorders are permanent and
incurable, but each one of them is completely preventable by G
ensuring a iodine supplementation of 100-150 ug (micrograms)
of iodine per day and the simplest and most effective way of
ensuring such iodine intake is through iodising the common salt
used for human consumption; and that iodine, when taken in
excess of what is required is easily excreted through urine and
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 8 S.C.R.
A therefore consumption of iodated salt is safe for everyone. It is
submitted that if the resistance to the ban was on account of
small scale manufacturers of salt not being able to produce
iodised salt in an economically viable manner or compete with
large scale manufacturers (multinational companies),
B appropriate steps would be taken by the central and state
governments to enable them to produce iodised salt by using
simple production techniques. It is stated that by 2006 itself
more than 800 private units were licensed and more than 500
units have started production of iodised salt. Respondent
C contei1ds that Rule 44-1 is neither inconsistent with the provisions
of the Act nor beyond its rule making power. The power to
make such a rule is traced to section 7(iv), and section 23(1)
and 23(1A)(f) of the Act.
7. Therefore, the following two questions arise for our
D consideration:
E
(i)
Whether Rule 44-1 is unconstitutional?
(ii)
Whether Rule 44-1 is inconsistent with the Act and
beyond the rule making power of the Central
Government?
Re : Question (i)
8. The question whether iodised salt is beneficial to the
F public or whether it causes harm to the majority of the populace,
is a highly disputed and debated issue, on which there is strong
divergence of opinion in the scientific community and among
the experts on medicine, nutrition and public health. The
petitioners have produced some medical and scientific
G literature which according to them demonstrates that Universal
Salt lodisation (for short 'USI') is not completely effective in
attaining its object of elimination of Iodine Deficiency Disorders
and at the same time injurious to the majority of populace who
d.o not suffer from iodine deficiency. Respondent has countered
H the said claim by relying upon some material to show that
•
•
ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT AND
699
ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
compulsory salt iodisation has shown marked results and is
A
required in the interest of public health.
Material against ban on non iodised salt for human
consumption :
9. Reliance was placed upon the resolution dated
B
29.12.1989 passed at a meeting of group of distinguished
scientists and experts including Dr. B.D.Agarwal, President,
Indian Medical Association (NB) OBA, Dr. Ajai Lanjewar,
President, Academy of Medical Sciences; Dr. (Mrs.) Memuha
Haque, President, Nutrition Society of India, Dr. P.K.Sengupta,
C
Past President IMA, and several others. The relevant portions
of the said resolution are extracted below:
"The available data about availability of iodine to the
people from daily diet clearly indicates that it is more than
D
adequate (Annual Report 1986-87, National Institute of
Nutrition, l.C.M.R. Hyderabad, Page 4). Also common salt
(Not iodised) provides iodine upto 5 micrograms per
grams of salt which it self is adequate to meet daily
requirement of iodine of poor people involved in hard work
E
(Salt Commissioner of India, Letter No. 11(4)/Goiter/89/
6373 dated 18.10.89 and Analytical Report of the Iodine
Content of Common Salt, Biochemistry Department,
Nagpur University of PGTD/BC dated 9th February, 1989
and Dr. M.S.Swaminathan).
As such it is concluded and resolved that there is no need
of promoting of compulsion of iodised salt all over the
country. However, the medical profession can prescribe
iodised salt or alike preparations for those who really need
F
iodine for their good health.
G
Available reports indicates regular excess intake of iodine
or iodised salt is injurious to the health of the people and
more so for pregnant, neonatal conditions and over the
age of 40 years. On the basis of these informations, use
H
A
B
c
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 8 S.C.R.
of radiographic dyes, antiseptic lotions and medication
with high iodine content are prohibited for clinical use in
pregnant mothers even in western countries.
It is also known that people are sensitive to iodine and as
such it is routine practice to carry out iodine sensitivity test
before iodine is used for diagnostic or therapeutic
purpose. It is noted that people suffering from asthama are
very sensitive to iodine and as such may prove health
hazard upto sudden death when universal use of iodised
salt is made (Preventive and control of Iodine Deficiency
Disorders by Basil & Hetzel, United Nations Publication,
March 1988 Page 76-77 and N. Kouchupillai &
M.M.Godbole, N.F.I. bulletin October 1986 page 343)."
10.