ACADEMY OF NUTRITION IMPROVEMENT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners have sought a 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 44I inserted in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955 by the said Amendment Rules. The said Rule reads as follows:

(2.) The Government of India has been promoting the use of iodised salt in place of common salt, for human consumption, since 1962 by launching a centrally assisted programmed for supplying iodised salt in place of common salt with the object of controlling and reducing various Iodine Deficiency Disorders including Goitre (for short TD Ds). 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, 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 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 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 44H 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 44H came into effect on 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 44H prohibiting the 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 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 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 provision should be made for sale of only iodised salt for direction human consumption. It was felt that by providing such 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 salt iodisation programmed in the country.