The Act mandates adherence to prescribed food standards, and any non-conforming food is deemed adulterated, irrespective of its impact on health. The Act must be interpreted to suppress the mischief of food adulteration.

Sreedharan, J.

These appeals arise from four Original Petitions disposed of by a common judgment. Issues raised in these appeals arc same. They relate to the validity of the standard prescribed for curry powder and synthetic vinegar in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The appellants contend that the standards prescribed for curry powder and synthetic vinegar have no connection with the object of the Act and the Rules, namely sale of wholesome food to the public. It is the argument of the counsel that the uniform standard prescribed for these articles in the Appendix to Rule 5 has been done without reference to pe tastes of people in different parts of the country. Variation in the contents of crude fibre in curry powder will not in any way be injurious to the health of the consumer and so the standard fixed for curry powder to have crude fibre not more than 15 % by weight on dry basis is arbitrary. In the case of synthetic vinegar, it is argued that deficiency in acetic acid content is not injurious to health and standard fixed for the same without taking note of this aspect is arbitrary and unsustainable.

2. Appellants in Writ Appeals 1616,1620 and 1621 of 1994 are manufacturers of curry powder.. They pray for a declaration that the prescription of a uniform standard for curry powder throughout India as mentioned in Item A.05.21 of Appendix by of the Rules is arbitrary and inoperative so far as Kerala State is concerned. They also pray for a declaration that the said standard is violative of fundamental rights of the appellants to any on business in curry powder as it offends ait.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They further pray for quashing the prosecution launched by the respective Food Inspectors against them for having sold curry powder which did not ' conform to the standard prescribed in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Rules.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellants advanced an argument that the object in enacting the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people. Wholesome foods are those which arc conducive to bodily health. Any food which is not injurious to bodily health cannot be considered as unwholesome. The purpose of the enactment, according to counsel, can only be 10 make available non-injurious articles of food to the consumers. If the food is not injurious, then it cannot be said as unwholesome coming with in the purview of the Act, Adulteration, according to counsel, should be confined to debase the article of food by adding inferior materials or elements. The adulteration must thereby make the article of food impure. In other words, the adulteration must be to reduce the quality or value. If an ingredient in the article of food does not go to reduce its quality or value, according to counsel, the said article of food can never be considered as adulterated, coming within the purview of the Act. If a standard is prescribed for an article of food and the variation of one ingredient in that will not in any way be injurious to the health of the consumer, then the fixation of that standard can never be considered as one for prevention of adulteration of the food. In oilier words, according to counsel, for an article of food to become adulterated must necessarily be injurious to health. If it is not, that article of food can never be considered as adulterated. Learned counsel went a step further and argued that the Parliament has no competence to legislate on articles of food which are not injurious to health. The argument was that Entry 18 in the Concurrent List allows the Parliament to legislate on "adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods". Under this Entry, the Parliament can legislate only in respect of adulteration of food as commonly understood. The word "adulteration" should get its import or meaning as given in the va