IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, ANANDA SEN, JJ.
Smokeless Tobacco Association – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1187 of 2021
Decided on : 01-11-2023
Food Safety and Standards Act - Chewing Tobacco - 2006 - [Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 3(1)(j), Section 30(2)(a), Section 34(1)] - The court determined whether chewing tobacco containing food additives falls within the definition of 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The court also examined the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Food Safety to permanently prohibit chewing tobacco containing food additives under the provisions of the FSSA. It considered whether the tobacco industry and food industry are two distinct and separate industries, and whether scheduled tobacco product cannot be treated as 'food' under the FSSA despite the presence of food additives. The court quashed the impugned notification dated 18.12.2018 due to lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind by the Commissioner of Food Safety. However, it upheld the advisory notification dated 21.09.2017 issued by the Union of India.
Fact of the Case:
The Smokeless Tobacco Association representing the Tobacco Producers and Traders filed a writ petition seeking to quash the letter dated 21.09.2017, order dated 18.12.2018, and notification dated 12.01.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Food Safety, Government of Jharkhand. The petitioner argued that tobacco products are distinct from food products and should be regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) rather than the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that chewing tobacco containing food additives does not fall within the definition of 'food' under the FSSA. It also determined that the Commissioner of Food Safety does not have jurisdiction to permanently prohibit chewing tobacco under the FSSA. The court held that the tobacco industry and food industry are two distinct and separate industries, and scheduled tobacco products cannot be treated as 'food' under the FSSA. The court quashed the impugned notification dated 18.12.2018 due to lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind by the Commissioner of Food Safety. However, it upheld the advisory notification dated 21.09.2017 issued by the Union of India.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were whether chewing tobacco containing food additives falls within the definition of 'food' under the FSSA, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Food Safety to permanently prohibit chewing tobacco under the FSSA, the distinction between the tobacco industry and food industry, and whether scheduled tobacco product can be treated as 'food' under the FSSA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'food' under the FSSA, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Food Safety, and the distinction between the tobacco industry and food industry. The court also considered the presence of food additives in chewing tobacco and its classification under the FSSA.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notification dated 18.12.2018, and upheld the advisory notification dated 21.09.2017 issued by the Union of India. The court's decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction and non-application of mind by the Commissioner of Food Safety in issuing the impugned notification.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Mishra, J.
1) Following mixed questions of facts and law and also pure questions of law arise for determination in this case:-
(ii) Whether the Commissioner of Food Safety has jurisdiction to permanently prohibit chewing tobacco containing food additives under the provisions of the FSSA?
(iii) Whether the tobacco industry and food industry are two distinct and separate industries – one, falling under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the COTPA” for brevity)?
(iv) Whether scheduled tobacco product cannot be treated as “food” under the FSSA in spite of the fact that food additives are found in the finished goods and it remains essentially a tobacco product to be regulated under the COTPA and not under the FSSA?
(v) Whether the impugned advisory and notification(s) 21st dated September, 2017 (Annexure 4), 18.12.2018 (Annexure 5) and 12.01.2021 (Annexure 7), are liable to be quashed because of lack of jurisdiction as well as non-application of mind by Commissioner of Food Safety?
2) The Smokeless Tobacco Association representing the Tobacco Producers and Traders has filed this writ petition to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 21.09.2017 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No.2 has been suggested to devise a mechanism for issuing license for sale of tobacco. Further, it has been prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction, including writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure 5) and Notification No. F.16/Khadya (Vividh)/12-06/2017/05(16) Heath, Ranchi dated 12.01.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Food Safety, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-7). The petitioner has also prayed for consequential relief.
3) The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is an Association of legal entities and persons engaged in the manufacturing, trading, marketing and dealing in all forms of smokeless tobacco products.
4) It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that tobacco plays a significant role in the Indian economy as it contributes substantially in terms of excise revenue and employment. India is the second largest producer of tobacco and also a major exporter of unmanufactured tobacco. The tax and GST collection from tobacco products in the year 2019-20 was stated to the tune of Rs.53,540/-Crores.
5) Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of Constitution reserves the field of controlled industries within the competence of the Parliament. Entry 52 List 1 reads as follows:-
6) Relevant part of Entry 33 of List III reads as follows:-
(a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products;
(b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;
(c)... … …
(d)… … …
(e)… … …”
7) It is the case of the petitioner that the schedule appended to COTPA includes chewing tobacco in Serial No.6 and, therefore, it is governed under the COTPA.
8) It is further case of the petitioner that under the aegis of the World Health Organization (‘WHO’ in short), the Codex Alimentarius has been created which is a collection of internationally adopted food standards and related texts presented in a uniform manner. The food standards and related texts aim at protecting consumers’ health and ensuring fair p
Point of law: Section 89 of the FSSA, gives the provisions of the FSSA, an overriding effect on all other food related laws. Once it is held that tobacco and other products, fall within the definitio....
Restriction imposed trade and business in chewing/chewable tobacco products is in larger public interest and is a reasonable restriction and in no way offends right to carry on trade guaranteed under....
Tobacco is classified as 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, allowing for regulation despite claims of it being inherently harmful.
The Commissioner of Food Safety does not have the authority to prohibit the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala containing Tobacco and Nicotine as ingredi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.