Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 903
1999 (2) JLJ 87
A.K. Mathur, C.J. and S.S. Jha, J.
K.C. Malhotra (Dr.) v. Union of India and others
W.P. No. 618 of 1998; Decided on 13.11.1998.
Petitioner in person; D.K. Katare with B.K. Tiwari for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Prevention of Food Adultration Rules, 1955 -- Rr. 42(v) (zzz) (11), 44G and 49(10) (as amended in 1997) -- amendment effected for use of iodised salt for human consumption -- is to preserve the health of citizens -- it is not liable to be struck off only on basis of price. [Paras 7 to 9]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 47 -- State is duty bound to provide proper nutrition to maintain public health -- sale of iodised salt for human consumption was thought fit after a deep survey. [Para 7]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- provision with regard to iodised salt -- cannot be declared invalid simply because it is costly than common salt when it is beneficial to public at large. [Para 9]
¼1½ [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k fu;e] 1955 && fu- ¼42½¼Q½ ¼;;;½ ¼11½] 44¼N½ rFkk 49¼10½ ¼1997 esa ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ && la‘kks/ku] vk;ksMhu ;qDr ued ekuo miHkksx esa iz;qDr fd, tkus ds fy, fd;k x;k && ukxfjdksa ds LokLF; ds laj{k.k ds fy, gS && ;g dsoy ewY; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafMr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¿ iSjk 7 ls 9
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 47 && jkT;] yksd LokLF; ds la/kkj.k ds fy, leqfpr iks"k.kkgkj micaf/kr djus ds fy, drZO;kc) gS && vk;ksMhu ;qDr ued dk ekuo miHkksx ds fy, foØ;] xgu losZ{k.k ds i‘pkr~ mi;qDr ekuk x;k FkkA ¿ iSjk 7
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && vk;ksMhu ;qDr ued ds ckjs esa mica/k && dsoy bl dkj.k vfof/kekU; ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd ;g lkekU; ude ls eg¡xk gS tc fd ;g tulk/kkj.k ds fy, Qk;nkizn gSA ¿ iSjk 9
Mathur, C.J. – 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the petitioner has prayed that the notification prohibiting sale of general salt should be quashed and a direction should be issued that the public should not be forced to consume iodized salt.
2. The petitioner is a doctor by profession and has brought this cause before this Court that poor people of India who are living mostly below the poverty line cannot afford to have the iodized salt which is expensive and therefore the action taken by the State in prohibiting the sale of general salt without iodine which is cheaper is bad. It is contended that the public at large is forced to consume iodized salt, cost of which is affordable by the people who are above poverty line. It is also pointed out that the iodized salt is ten times more costly than the ordinary salt in the market. It is alleged that it is nothing but a device to benefit the multinational companies to control this industry also.
3. The Government of India has issued notification through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 27th Nov. 1997 published in the Gazette of India (Extra Ordinary) Part II dated 9th July, 1998. By this notification, provisions of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder have been amended. The notification reads as under :-
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th November, 1997
GSR 670 (E) : Whereas certain draft rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were published as required by sub-Section (1) of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (37 of 1954) with the notification pf the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health). No. GSR 6 (E) dated the 6th January 1997 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-Section (1). dated the 6th January, 1997 inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby before the expiry of ninety days from the date on which the copies of the Official Gazette containing the said notification were made available to the public; And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette were made available to the public on 15th January, 1997;
And whereas the objections and suggestions received from the public on the said draft rules have been considered by Central Government;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) read with sub-Section (1A) of Section 23 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, namely:
1. (i) These rules may be called the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Xth Amendment) Rules, 1997.
(ii) They shall come into force after six months from the date of their publication in the official Gazette.
2. In the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 –
(i) In Rule 42, --
(a) for sub-Rule (v), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:
(v) Every container or package of table iodised salt or iron fortified common salt containing permitted anticaking agents shall bear the following label, namely:-
TABLE IODISED SALT/TABLE IRON FORTIFIED COMMON SALT CONTAINS PERMITTED ANTICAKING AGENT.
'Sticke out whichever is' not applicable.'
(b) In sub-rule (zzz), after clause (10), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-
(11) Every container or package of common salt shall bear the following label namely:-
COMMON SALT FOR IODISATION/IRON FORTIFICATION/ANIMAL USE/PRESERVATION/MEDICINE/INDUSTRIAL USE
Strike out which is not applicable,
(ii) After rule 44F, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-
'44G. Restriction on sale of common salt -- No person shall sell or offer or expose for sale or have in his premises for the purpose of sale, common salt for direct human consumption unless the same
