Supreme Court Allows Transfer of Writ Petitions and Delinks Cases Regarding Iodised Salt. Notification Prohibiting Non-Iodised Salt Sale Challenged Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved the transfer of multiple writ petitions from various High Courts to the Supreme Court, specifically addressing issues related to the sale and manufacture of iodised and non-iodised salt. The Transfer Case (Civil) No. 11 of 2002 sought to quash a notification issued by the Director of Health Services, Orissa, which prohibited the sale and manufacture of common salt other than iodised salt for human consumption. This notification was issued under the relevant state rules on October 15, 2001. Additionally, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 175 of 2006 was filed to direct the central government to formulate a uniform policy for controlling goitre and to impose a nationwide ban on non-iodised salt. The Supreme Court, while allowing the transfer of the cases, granted six months for reviewing the position regarding universal iodisation of salt. The court delinked the two cases from the others that were disposed of, as they did not pertain to the challenge of Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The court scheduled the pending matters for further orders after the six-month review period.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Quashing of Notifications - Validity of Notification - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - The court considered the legality of a notification prohibiting the sale and manufacture of non-iodised salt, issued under state rules. The court allowed the transfer of cases and delinked those not related to the challenge of the notification, indicating the need for further review of the iodisation policy. Held that the matter required further consideration (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notification prohibiting the sale and manufacture of non-iodised salt can be quashed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer of the writ petitions and delinked the cases not related to the challenge of the notification. The court granted six months for reviewing the position regarding universal iodisation.

Law Points

  • Transfer of cases
  • Writ petitions
  • Quashing of notifications
  • Public health policy
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (SC) (07) 138

Transferred case no(s) 11 of 2002

2011-07-04

R.V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy

[2011] 8 SCR 723

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to a notification regarding the sale and manufacture of iodised salt.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the notification prohibiting non-iodised salt.

Filing Reason

Notification issued under state rules prohibiting non-iodised salt.

Issues

Validity of the notification prohibiting non-iodised salt Need for a uniform policy on iodisation

Submissions/Arguments

Challenge to the legality of the notification Request for a uniform policy on iodised salt

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the need for a review of public health policies regarding iodisation and the legality of state notifications under relevant rules.

Judgment Excerpts

Transfer Petition (C) Nos.92/2009, 152/2009, 168/2009, 185/2009 and 218/2009 are allowed. Transfer Case (Civil) No.11 of 2002 seeks quashing of a notification dated 15.10.2001.

Procedural History

The court allowed the transfer of multiple writ petitions and delinked cases not related to the challenge of the notification.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules: Rule 44-I
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partially Allows Appeal in Land Dispute Case — Remands Matter for Fresh Decision. The Deputy Director's direction to record land as 'Navin Parti' was set aside due to improper setting aside of earlier orders.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal for Correction of Date of Birth in Government Service Record — Belated Application and Lack of Evidence Lead to Dismissal. Fundamental Rule 56 Note 6 Requires Correction Within Five Years of Entry into Service.