Reportable  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION [C] NO.80 OF 2006  

Academy of Nutrition Improvement and Others … Petitioners

v.

Union of India … Respondent

With TC (C) No. 54 of 2011 (@ TP (C) No.92/2009),           TC (C) No. 55 of 2011 (@ TP (C) No.152/2009),           TC (C) No. 56 of 2011 (@ TP (C) No.168/2009),           TC (C) No. 57 of 2011 (@ TP (C) No.185/2009),           TC (C) No. 58 of 2011 (@ TP (C) No.218/2009).  

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

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  44-I  inserted  in  the  Prevention  of  Food  

Adulteration Rules 1955 by the said Amendment Rules. The said Rule  reads  

as follows :

“44 I. Restriction on sale of common salt – No person shall  sell or offer to expose for sale or have in his premises for the  purpose of sale, the common salt, for direct human consumption  unless the same is iodized :

Provided that common salt may be sold or exposed for sale or  stores  for  sale  for  iodization,  iron  fortification,  animal  use,  preservation, manufacturing medicines, and industrial use, under  proper label declarations, as specified under clause (22) of sub- rule (zzz) of rule 42.”

The incidental  challenge is  to consequential  amendments  to the Rules by  

insertion of Rule 43(zzz)(22) which reads as under :

“Rule 43(zzz)(22). Every container or package of common salt shall bear  the following label, namely :

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 programme for supplying iodised salt in place of common  

salt with the object of controlling and reducing various Iodine Deficiency  

Disorders including Goitre (for short ‘IDDs’). 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,  

2

COMMON SALT FOR IODISATION/IRON FORTIFICATION/  ANIMAL USE/PRESERVATION/MEDICINE/INDUSTRIAL USE*

*Strike out whichever is not applicable

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 44-H 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 44-H 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 44-H 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  

3

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 programme in the country.

4. The  said  omission  of  Rule  44-H  was  challenged  by  ‘Common  

Cause’, an NGO, in Writ Petition (C) No.525 of 2000 in this Court. During  

the  pendency  of  W.P.  (C)  No.525 of  2000,  a  Core  Advisory  Group on  

Public Health & Human Rights, National Human Rights Commission, was  

required to critically  apprise  the evidence available  on the public  health  

4

consequences  arising  from  consumption  of  non-iodized  salt  by  the  

populace. The said Core Advisory Group submitted a report dated 6.2.2004  

advising  that  universal  iodisation  of  salt  is  a  public  health  need  which  

should be implemented throughout the country without any relaxation in the  

ban on sale of non-iodised salt. On  a  survey   of   324  districts  in 28  

States and 7 Union Territories, 263 districts were found to be endemic for  

IDDs, (that is, where prevalence of IDDs was found in more than 10% of  

the population) and no state or Union Territory was free from IDDs. It was  

also  found  that  iodine  deficiency  caused  a  wide  spectrum of  disorders,  

ranging from Goitre to Cretinism, apart from causing disorders like still-

birth,  abortion,  dwarfism, eye-squint,  mental  retardation,  lower IQ, deaf-

mutism and neuromotor defects. It was found that the simplest and most  

effective and inexpensive method of preventing and controlling IDDs was  

to make up the iodine deficiency by iodising the common salt to ensure that  

through  consumption  of  iodised  salt,  not  less  than  150  micro  grams  of  

iodine is made available to each person per day. In view of the said report,  

the  Central  Government  again  introduced  a  ban  on  sale  of  non-iodised  

common salt  for human consumption by inserting Rule 44-I,  by way of  

amendment to the Rules, vide notification dated 17.11.2005. On such re-

introduction of the ban, WP [C] No.525 of 2000 challenging the omission  

of Rule 44H was disposed of, as having become infructuous.  

5

5. The  petitioners  in  these  writ  petitions  are  non-governmental  

organisations  representing  consumers,  salt  producers,  medical  experts,  

academics,  etc.  They  oppose  compulsory  iodisation  of  salt  for  human  

consumption. According to them, goitre and other IDDs occur not only in  

areas  deficient  in  iodine  but  also  in  areas  where  (i)  water  supply  is  

contaminated, (ii)  water is hard, (iii)  poor hygiene prevails on account of  

poverty,  (iv)  foods contain  iodine inhibitory (goitrogenic)  substances;  (v)  

functioning of thyroid gland is improper; and (vi) consumption of processed  

and preserved food is excessive. According to them, even after two decades  

of  use  of  iodised salt  in  several  areas,  incidence  of  goitre  had increased  

sharply.  It  is  submitted  that  the  international  experience,  particularly  in  

western  countries,  is  to  move  from  compulsory  iodisation  regime  to  

voluntary  need-based iodisation  regime,  so that  only those  having iodine  

deficiency could use iodised salt. It is submitted that when people who do  

not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly,  

there is risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher  

intake of iodine and increase in iodine levels. According to the petitioners,  

constant use of iodised salt on account of compulsory iodisation, would lead  

to iodine-induced hyper-thyroidism with increased chances of death.  It  is  

contended  that  while  iodised  salt  would  help  to  make  up  the  iodine  

deficiency in about 10% of the populace, it would adversely affect the health  

of remaining 90% of the populace who have no deficiency in iodine levels.  

6

5.1) The  petitioners  submit  that  when  the  entire  populace  do  not  need  

iodised salt, it is unfair and unjust to deny them the right to choose between  

iodised  salt  and  non-iodised  salt.  It  is  submitted  that  Rule  44-I  violates  

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which entitle every person to have  

free choice in regard to consumption of food.  

5.2) The petitioners submit that the cost of iodised salt being several times  

more than the cost of non-iodised salt, the majority of the populace were  

adversely  affected  by  the  rule  requiring  compulsory  iodisation.  It  is  

contended that the compulsory use of iodised salt only helped a few multi-

national companies (MNCs) which had the monopoly in the manufacture of  

iodised salt. It is submitted that many small scale and local producers of salt  

were  adversely  affected  by  creation  of  such  monopoly.  The  petitioners  

therefore  contend  that  Rule  44-I  is  violative  of  Article  19(1)(g)  of  the  

Constitution, as it affects the fundamental right of small and medium scale  

manufacturers to carry on their business in salt.

5.3) It was lastly contended by the petitioners that non-iodised salt was not  

injurious to public health and consequently, the provisions of the Act do not  

enable the Central Government to make a rule banning the sale of common  

salt (non-iodised salt) for human consumption. The petitioners submit that  

7

common salt is an unadulterated article used as an ingredient in food and  

Rule  44-I  imposing  a  ban  on  its  sale  for  human  consumption  does  not  

conform to, and is inconsistent with the object of the statute under which it  

is made.

6. Respondent  has  resisted   the  petitions  by  referring  to  the  

circumstances (mentioned in para 4 above) which necessitated the insertion  

of Rule 44-I by way of amendment to the Rules. It was contended that the  

ban on sale of common salt  for human consumption was imposed in the  

interest of public health, and does not violate either Article 14 or 21 of the  

Constitution. It is submitted that IDDs are caused by lack of iodine in diet;  

that majority of iodine deficiency disorders are permanent and incurable, but  

each  one  of  them  is  completely  preventable  by  ensuring  a  iodine  

supplementation  of  100-150  ug  (micrograms)  of  iodine  per  day  and  the  

simplest and most effective way of ensuring such iodine intake is through  

iodising  the  common  salt  used  for  human consumption;  and  that  iodine,  

when taken in excess of what is required is easily excreted through urine and  

therefore consumption of iodated salt is safe for everyone. It is submitted  

that if the resistance to the ban was on account of small scale manufacturers  

of  salt  not  being  able  to  produce  iodised  salt  in  an  economically  viable  

manner  or  compete  with  large  scale  manufacturers  (multinational  

companies),  appropriate  steps  would  be  taken  by  the  central  and  state  

8

governments  to  enable  them  to  produce  iodised  salt  by  using  simple  

production techniques. It is stated that by 2006 itself more than 800 private  

units  were  licensed  and  more  than  500  units  have  started  production  of  

iodised salt. Respondent contends that Rule 44-I is neither inconsistent with  

the provisions of the Act nor beyond its rule making power. The power to  

make such a rule is traced to section 7(iv), and section 23(1) and 23(1A)(f)  

of the Act.

7. Therefore, the following two questions arise for our consideration:   

(i) Whether Rule 44-I is unconstitutional?

(ii) Whether Rule 44-I is inconsistent with the Act and beyond the rule  making power of the Central Government?  

Re : Question (i)  

8. The  question  whether  iodised  salt  is  beneficial  to  the  public  or  

whether it causes harm to the majority of the populace, is a highly disputed  

and debated issue, on which there is  strong divergence of opinion in the  

scientific  community  and  among  the  experts  on  medicine,  nutrition  and  

public  health.  The petitioners have produced some medical and scientific  

literature  which  according  to  them  demonstrates  that  Universal  Salt  

Iodisation (for short ‘USI’) is not completely effective in attaining its object  

of elimination of Iodine Deficiency Disorders and at the same time injurious  

9

to  the  majority  of  populace  who  do  not  suffer  from  iodine  deficiency.  

Respondent has countered the said claim by relying upon some material to  

show  that  compulsory  salt  iodisation  has  shown  marked  results  and  is  

required in the interest of public health.

Material against ban on non iodised salt for human consumption :

9. Reliance was placed upon the resolution dated 29.12.1989 passed at a  

meeting  of  group  of  distinguished  scientists  and  experts  including  Dr.  

B.D.Agarwal,  President, Indian Medical Association (NB) DBA, Dr. Ajai  

Lanjewar,  President,  Academy of  Medical  Sciences;  Dr.  (Mrs.)  Memuha  

Haque,  President,  Nutrition  Society  of  India,  Dr.  P.K.Sengupta,  Past  

President  IMA,  and  several  others.  The  relevant  portions  of  the  said  

resolution are extracted below:

 “The available data about availability of iodine to the people from daily  diet clearly indicates that it is more than adequate (Annual Report 1986- 87,  National  Institute  of  Nutrition,  I.C.M.R.  Hyderabad,  Page  4).  Also  common salt (Not iodised) provides iodine upto 5 micrograms per grams  of salt which it self is adequate to meet daily requirement of iodine of poor  people  involved in hard  work (Salt  Commissioner  of  India,  Letter  No.  11(4)/Goiter/89/6373 dated 18.10.89 and Analytical Report of the Iodine  Content of Common Salt, Biochemistry Department, Nagpur University of  PGTD/BC dated 9th February, 1989 and Dr. M.S.Swaminathan).

As such it is concluded and resolved that there is no need of promoting of  compulsion  of  iodised salt  all  over  the  country.  However,  the  medical  profession can prescribe iodised salt or alike preparations for those who  really need iodine for their good health.

Available reports indicates regular excess intake of iodine or iodised salt is  injurious to the health of the people and more so for pregnant, neonatal  conditions  and  over  the  age  of  40  years.  On  the  basis  of  these  informations, use of radiographic dyes, antiseptic lotions and medication  

10

with  high  iodine  content  are  prohibited  for  clinical  use  in  pregnant  mothers even in western countries.

It is also known that people are sensitive to iodine and as such it is routine  practice  to  carry  out  iodine  sensitivity  test  before  iodine  is  used  for  diagnostic or therapeutic purpose. It is noted that people suffering from  asthama are very sensitive to iodine and as such may prove health hazard  upto sudden death when universal use of iodised salt is made (Preventive  and control  of  Iodine  Deficiency  Disorders  by Basil  & Hetzel,  United  Nations  Publication,  March  1988  Page  76-77  and  N.  Kouchupillai  &  M.M.Godbole, N.F.I. bulletin October 1986 page 343).”

10. In an open letter dated 9.9.2005 addressed to the Minister for Health  

& Family Welfare, Government of India, 235 eminent doctors and  medical  

experts  pointed  out  that  adverse  side-affects  to  a  large  number  would  

outweigh  benefits  to  a  few  and  raised  the  following  issues  for  the  

consideration of the Ministry :

“The studies available in the public domain provide only weak evidence in  support of the universal ban.

• The prevalence and seriousness of the problem both appear to have been  overestimated, especially given that some qualified analysts have pointed  out methodological flaws. For instance, goiter is known to be difficult to  assess, and it can exist as a physiological (normal) condition as well as a  disease condition, but the studies do not account for this.

• The studies assessing impact of salt iodisation programmes appear to have  assumed effectiveness of the programme approach, even though findings  of several studies demonstrate varying impact. Some studies show little  impact despite high use of iodised salt in such areas, thus pointing to the  multifactorial  origin of  IDD. In other  areas  goiter  has  declined despite  little use of iodised salt.

• The potential negative consequence of compulsory use of iodised salt have  been demonstrated by other studies, gaining importance when applied on a  mass scale.”

In some locations and sub-populations, iodine deficiency disorders (IDD)  do constitute a public health problem. Local  measures to deal with the  problem are known, for instance,  subsidizing the iodised salt  so that  it  becomes available at lower prices than non-iodised salt, promoting small-

11

scale production in the endemic pockets and encouraging its  use there.  Therefore,  there  is  no  rationale  for  instituting  a  universal  ban on non- iodised salt.”

11. Reliance  was placed  on the  following passage  from Text  Book of  

Medical Physiology (By Author C. Guyton & John E. Hall – 1996 Edition) :  

“Because  iodides  in  high concentrations  decrease  all  phases  of  thyroid  activity, they slightly decrease the size of the thyroid gland and especially  decrease its blood supply, in contradistinction to the oppose effects caused  by most of the other anti-thyroid agents.”

The following observations from the Article “Common Salt vs. Iodised Salt”  

(by Dr. PVR Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, People for Economical and Effective  

Medicare) are also relied on :  

“The advice for consumption of iodised salt without correction of total  nutritional  deficiency  is  unscientific  and results  in  waste  of  money.  If  iodine is consumed in the form of iodised salt the aim is to see that the  iodine  gets  converted  into  thyroid  hormone,  there  should  be  sufficient  amounts  of  the essential  amino acid tyrosine  (protein)  and the enzyme  peroxidise for the manufacture of which sufficient quantities of iron in the  body are necessary.  It  means that  if  there is  protein deficiency or iron  deficiency or both, whatever iodine is given to an individual in any form it  would be completely excreted in the urine. Therefore, it is utterly futile to  advice  consumption  of  iodised  salt  without  correcting  total  nutrition  deficiency including anaemia. It is worth while to note that even in urban  population 60% are anaemia and in rural population it would be around  80% with this degree of anaemia iodine deficiency cannot be corrected by  any means if anaemia is not corrected.

Conclusion :  

(c) By addition of potassium iodate which may be harmful to some,  iodised salt is the adulterated salt.  

(d) Iodised  salt  is  known to cause  hyperthyroidism and also severe  allergic reactions to some and its universal consumption leads to health  hazards.  

(e) Without correcting iron and protein deficiencies, advising people  to consume iodised salt amounts to putting cart before the horse.  

12

(f) People who are deficient in iodine, are deficient in all nutrients.  For them total nutrition correction and not iodised salt is the answer.”    

Material in support of the compulsory use of iodised salt

12. On the other hand the respondent submitted that the decision to ban  

non-iodised salt for human consumption was taken on detailed studies and  

on the advice of the Core Advisory Group on Public  Health and Human  

Rights  (NHRC).  Reliance  is  placed  on  the  following  passages  from the  

report dated 6.2.2004 of the Core Advisory Group :

“The Core Advisory Group reviewed the documents which were sent to it  by the NHRC and the members also drew upon their expertise and several  scientific publications, to critically appraise the evidence available on the  public health consequences arising from consumption of non-iodised salt  by sections of our population.

Iodine  deficiency  disorders  have  been  recognized  as  a  public  health  problem in India since the 1920s. Unlike other micronutrient deficiencies,  iodine deficiency disorders are due to deficiency of iodine in water, soil  and  foodstuffs  and  affect  all  socio-economic  groups  living  in  defined  geographic areas. Initially, Iodine deficiency disorders were thought to be  a  problem  in  sub-Himalayan  region.  However,  surveys  carried  out  subsequently  showed  that  iodine  deficiency  disorders  exist  even  in  riverine and coastal areas. No State in India is completely free from iodine  deficiency disorders. Universal use of iodised salt is a simple, inexpensive  method of preventing iodine deficiency disorders.       

x x x

The Tenth Five Year Plan has recommended that it is essential to ensure  that only iodised salt is made available for human consumption in order to  enable  the  children  of  the  21st century  to  attain  their  full  intellectual  potential and take their rightful place in a knowledge based-society.  x x x

The plea that there should not be any ban on the sale of non iodised salt  and  that  the  people  should  be  allowed  to  make  an  informed  choice  between  use  of  iodised  salt  and  non  iodised  salt  is  not  tenable.  An  apparently  normal  mother  in  a  family  with  no  over  signs  of  iodine  deficiency disorders (IDD) can deliver a child with cretinism. In view of  

13

this  there  is  a  need  to  ensure  universal  access  only  to  good  quality  powdered iodised salt…...

The Core Advisory Group was of the opinion that universal iodisation of  salt is a public health need which should be met, without any relaxation in  the ban on sale of non-iodised salt. If part of the opposition to a ban on the  sale  of  non-iodised  salt  arises  from  the  apprehensions  of  small-scale  manufacturers of salt that they would be unable to produce iodised salt in  an  economically  viable  manner  and  compete  with  large  commercial  manufacturers of iodised salt, appropriate steps may be taken by relevant  government agencies to enable them to produce iodised salt close to the  sites of salt extraction, using simple production techniques.”         

13. Support for compulsory iodisation of salt for human consumption is  

also found in the opinion of several experts. We may refer to some of them.  

The  World  Health  Organisation,  in  its  publication  on  “Vitamin  and  

Mineral  Requirements  in  Human  Nutrition”  [2004  Edition,  p.314]  

states:

“Excess  iodine  intake  in  healthy  adults  in  iodine  replete  areas  is  difficult to define. Many people are regularly exposed to huge amounts  of iodine- in the range of 10-200 mg/daily – without apparent adverse  effects… This  tolerance  to  huge  doses  of  iodine  in  healthy  iodine- replete  adults  is  the  reason  why WHO stated  in  1994  that,  “Daily  iodine intake of upto 1 mg i.e. 1000 ug appears to be entirely safe…. In  conclusion, it appears clearly that the  benefits  of correcting iodine  deficiency far outweigh the risks of iodine supplementation.”

Report  of  a  WHO  Expert  Consultation:  “Salt  as  a  Vehicle  for  

Fortification”, (2007), at p. 7 states:   

Salt is the most widely used food vehicle for iodine fortification. USI, that  is  iodization  of  all  salt  for  human  (food  industry  and  household)  and  livestock  consumption,  is  the  strategy  recommended  by  WHO for  the  control of iodine deficiency (WHO, 1999). Salt iodization programmes are  currently implemented in over 70 countries around the world where IDD  is a public health problem (Delange F, et al, 1999).

14

Lewis E Braverman in his article “Adequate iodine intake – the good far  

outweighs the bad”, [European Journal of Endocrinology, 1998, Vol. 139  

pages 14-15] says:

“Over the past few years, small outbreaks of thyrotoxicosis in adults have  been reported following iodine prophylaxis with iodized oil or iodized salt  in severely iodine-deficient regions, probably due to excess iodination of  these  severely  iodine-deficient  populations  (3-6).  However,  it  must  be  emphasized that the eradication of iodine deficiency far outweighs this  minor risk, which is almost always self-limited and disappears over  many  years  as  the  iodine-deficient  population  achieves  iodine  repletion. Prevention  of  iodine-deficiency  goiter,  mental  and  growth  retardation,  poor  productivity,  and cretinism must  be  achieved  through  joint efforts of international, national, and local agencies.”

Rajan Shankar and C.S.Pandav, in “Ban on Sale of Non-iodized Salt for  

Human  Consumption:  A  step  in  the  right  direction”  (The  National  

Medical Journal of India, Vol. 18, No.4, 2005 p. 169 at p.170) state :

“Why is there a need for legislation and compulsory salt iodisation?  Can  people  have  a  choice?  There  are  situations  in  which,  in  the  absence of proper education, ‘the freedom to choose’ may not offer the  right choice and salt iodization is one of them. Individuals often need  to be convinced to make good choices when the benefits are preventive  in nature….  Public  health experts who see iodine deficiency as a  critical  problem  should  lead  the  fight  against  the  idelogical  arguments tilted in the direction of doing nothing.”

In “Modern Nutrition in Health and Development” edited by M.Shike  

and others [Lippincott, Williams, & Wilknis Publishers, 2006, p.310] it is  

observed:

“Iodine  is  a  necessary  component  of  the  thyroid  hormones,  which  are  required for life and health. Iodine is distributed unequally over the earth,  and  half  of  the  world’s  population  lives  in  countries  with  significant  deficiency.  The  worst  consequence  of  the  deficiency  occur  during  pregnancy and included fetal and infant deaths, irreversible brain damage,  and  maternal  complications.  Additional  problems  of  the  rest  of  the  community are hypothyroidism, goiter, and socio-economic stagnisation.  

15

Iodisation  of  salt  is  the  best  and  most  effective  way  of  correcting  iodine deficiency. Excess iodine intake occasionally occurs but can be  avoided  :  its  consequences  are  minor  compared  with  those  of  deficiency.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. There  is  thus  some  material  to  support  the  contention  of  the  

petitioners that around 90% of the populace do not need iodised salt and that  

consumption of excess iodine may have some adverse effects. On the other  

hand  there  is  also  considerable  material  for  the  view  that  compulsory  

iodisation is also necessary to prevent IDDs in about 10% (or more) of the  

populace and the consumption of iodised salt by the remaining 90% who do  

not require it, may not be injurious to their health as excess iodine is easily  

excreted. The question whether there should be universal salt iodisation is a  

much  debated  technical  issue  relating  to  medical  science.  An  informed  

decision in  such matters  can only be taken by experts  after  carrying out  

exhaustive surveys, trials, tests, scientific investigations and research. Courts  

are  neither  equipped,  nor  can  be  expected  to  decide  about  the  need  or  

absence  of  need  for  such  universal  salt  iodisation  on  the  basis  of  some  

articles and reports placed before it. This Court in a series of decisions has  

reiterated that courts should not rush in where even scientists and medical  

experts  are  careful  to  tread.  The  rule  of  prudence  is  that  courts  will  be  

reluctant  to  interfere  with  policy  decisions  taken  by  the  Government,  in  

matters of public health, after collecting and analysing inputs from surveys  

16

and research.  Nor will  courts  attempt to substitute  their  own views as to  

what is wise, safe, prudent or proper, in relation to technical issues relating  

to public health in preference to those formulated by persons said to possess  

technical expertise and rich experience. This Court in  Directorate of Film  

Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain - 2007 (4) SCC 737, pointed out :  

“The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined.  Courts  do  not  and  cannot  act  as  Appellate  Authorities  examining  the  correctness,  suitability  and  appropriateness  of  a  policy.  Nor  are  courts  Advisors  to  the  executive  on  matters  of  policy which  the  executive  is  entitled  to  formulate.  The  scope  of  judicial  review  when  examining  a  policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental  rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or  opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot  interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the  ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the  policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of  judicial review.”

15. The limited question that can therefore be examined by this Court is  

whether the policy underlying Rule 44-I based on opinion of experts and  

national survey can be said to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable so as to  

be  violative  of  Article  14.  The  further  question  is  whether  forcing  the  

majority of populace who are not having iodine deficiency to use iodised salt  

to ensure that those with iodine deficiency get their needed dosage of iodine  

would affect their right to life under Article 21. The last question is whether  

the  rule  violates  the  fundamental  right  of  small  scale  and medium scale  

manufacturers of salt and traders to carry on trade or business and thereby  

violates Article 19(1)(g).

17

16. In  our  considered  opinion  the  petitioners’  challenge  to  

constitutionality of the impugned amendment is bound to fail.  Courts are  

not  equipped to  decide  the  medical  issue  relating  to  public  health,  as  to  

whether compulsory iodisation should be replaced by voluntary iodisation as  

has been done in some developed countries, so that both common salt and  

iodised salt are available in the market and only those 10% who are deficient  

in iodine can opt for iodised salt.  The Government of India has taken note  

of scientific and medical inputs, research results and survey data to conclude  

that compulsory iodisation is  the most effective and accepted method for  

elimination of iodine deficiency disorders and that consumption of iodised  

salt by persons not suffering from iodine deficiency will not adversely affect  

them.  Rule  44-I  is  stated  to  be  in  implementation  of  a  policy  decision  

regarding  public  health.  The  material  placed  by  the  petitioners  is  not  

sufficient  to  hold  that  the  reason  for the ban is erroneous and that Rule  

44-I is  unreasonable  and arbitrary.  We therefore reject the contention that  

the  provision   placing  a  ban  on  sale  of   non-iodised   salt   for  human  

consumption resulting  in  compulsory intake of iodised salt, is arbitrary  and  

violative of Article 14 or injurious to the health of general populace  and  

therefore violative  of Article 21.  The  use of common  salt (non-iodised  

salt) for  industrial  and  commercial  use  has  not  prohibited.  The  ban  

operates  only in regard to use of common salt for human consumption. There  

18

is also no material to show that any monopoly is sought to be created in  

favour  of  a  chosen  few  companies  or  MNCs.  In  the  circumstances,  the  

contention that Article 19(1)(g) is violated is liable to be rejected.

Re : Question (ii)

17. The petitioners next contend that Rule 44-I apart from being contrary  

to the objects and provisions of the Act, travels beyond the scope of the Act.  

It is also contended that the Act does not empower the central government to  

make a rule banning the manufacture, sale or distribution of an article unless  

it  is  adulterated or  injurious to health.  The respondent  on the other hand  

contends that section 7(iv) and sub-sections (1) and (1A) (f) of section 23 of  

the Act empower and enable the central government  to make Rule 44-I and  

the  rule  does  not  travel  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Act.  To  consider  this  

question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act which  

was enacted to make provision for prevention of food adulteration.  

18. The  Act  contemplates  prohibition  of  manufacture,  storing,  sale  or  

distribution of any adulterated and mis-branded food, measures to prevent  

adulteration,  and  also  provides  for  laying  down  food  standards  and  

prohibiting import of certain objectionable articles of food items. Section 7  

19

of the Act relates to prohibition of manufacture, sale etc. of certain articles  

of food. It is extracted below :

“7. Prohibition of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food.— No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for  sale, or store, sell or distribute—

(i) any adulterated food; (ii) any misbranded food; (iii) any article of food for the sale of which a licence is prescribed,  

except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; (iv) any  article  of  food  the  sale  of  which  is  for  the  time  being  

prohibited by the Food (Health)  Authority in the interest of  public health;

(v) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this  Act or of any rule made thereunder; or

(vi) any adulterant.”  

The term ‘food’ is defined in section 2(v) as under :

“(v) “food”  means  any  article  used  as  food  or  drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes—

(a) any  article  which  ordinarily  enters  into,  or  is  used  in  the  composition or preparation of, human food,

(b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and (c) any  other  article  which  the  Central  Government  may,  having  

regard  to  its  use,  nature,  substance  or  quality,  declare,  by  notification in the Official Gazette,  as food for the purposes of  this Act;”

‘Food (Health) Authority’ is defined in section 2(vi) as under :

“Food  (Health)  Authority”  means  the  Director  of  Medical  and  Health  Services or the Chief Officer in-charge of Health administration in a State,  by whatever designation he is known, and includes any officer empowered  by the Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the  Official Gazette, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Food  (Health) Authority under this Act with respect to such local area as may  be specified in the notification;”   

Section 23 of the Act relates to the power of the central government to make  

rules, relevant portions of which are extracted below :

20

“23. Power of the Central Government to make rules.—(1) The Central  Government  may,  after  consultation  with  the  Committee  and  after  previous publication by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to  carry out the provisions of this Act: x x x  

(1A) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing  power,  such rules may provide for all  or  any of the following matters,  namely:--  

x x x x x x

(f) prohibiting the sale of defining the conditions of sale of any substance  which may be injurious to health when used as food or restricting in any  manner its use as an ingredient in the manufacture of any article of food or  regulating by the issue of licences the manufacture or sale of any article of  food; xxx xxx

19. The object of the Act is to prevent supply of adulterated food-stuff as  

a part of business activity, in the interests of health of the community. In  

Municipal Corporation of Delhi. v. Kacheroo Mal  [1976 (1) SCC 412], this  

court described the object of the Act thus:  

“The Act has been enacted to curb and remedy the widespread evil  of   food-adulteration, and to ensure the sale of wholesome food to the people.  It is well settled that wherever possible, without unreasonable stretching or  straining the language of such a statute, should be construed in a manner  which would suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, promote its ob- ject, prevent its subtle evasion and foil its artful circumvention...

In Dinesh Chandra Jamnadas Gandhi vs. State of Gujarat – 1989 (1) SCC  

420, this Court described the object of the Act thus :  

“The object and the purpose of the Act are to eliminate the danger to hu- man life from the sale of unwholesome articles of food The legislation is  on the Topic 'Adulteration of Food Stuffs and other Goods' (Entry 18 list  III Seventh Schedule). It is enacted to curb the wide spread evil of food  adulteration and is a legislative measure for social-defence. It is intended  to suppress a social and economic mischief-----an evil which attempts to  poison, for monetary pains the very sources of sustenance of life and the  well-being of the community. The evil of adulteration of food and its ef-

21

fects on the health of the community are assuming alarming proportions.  The offence of adulteration is a socio-economic offence……The construc- tion appropriate  to  a social  defence legislation is,  therefore,  one which  would suppress the mischief aimed at by the legislation and advance the  remedy.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The grounds on which a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged  

are well settled. In  State of Karnataka vs. H. Ganesh Kamath – 1983 (2)  

SCC 402, this Court held :  

“……It  is  a  well-settled  principle  of  interpretation  of  statutes  that  the  conferment of rule-making power by an Act  does not enable the rule  making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of  the enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.”

(emphasis supplied)

In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India – 1985  

(1) SCC 641, this Court held :  

“A piece of  subordinate  legislation  does  not  carry  the  same degree  of  immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature.  Subordinate  legislation may be  questioned on  any of  the  grounds  on  which  plenary  legislation  is  questioned.  In  addition,  it  may  also  be  questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under  which it is made. It may further be question on the ground that it is  contrary  to  some  other  statute.  That  is  because  sub-ordinate  legislation must yield to plenary legislation.”    

(emphasis supplied)

In General Officer Commanding-in-Chief vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav  

– 1988 (2) SCC 351, this Court held :  

“Rules have statutory force.  But before a rule can have the effect  of a  statutory provision, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) it must  conform to the provisions of the statute under which it is framed; and (2) it  must  also  come  within  the  scope  and  purview  of  the  rule  making  power  of  the  authority  framing  the  rule.  If  either  of  these  two  conditions is not fulfilled, the rule so framed would be void.”  

(emphasis supplied)

22

In  Supreme Court  Employees’  Welfare  Association  vs.  Union of  India  –  

1989 (4) SCC 187, this Court held :  

“Thus as delegated legislation, a subordinate legislation must conform  exactly to the power granted.  

Rules  whether  made under  the Constitution  or  a  Statute,  must be intra  vires the parent law under which power has been delegated. They must  also be in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution and other laws.  If they do not tend in some degree to the accomplishment of the objects   for which power has been delegated to the authority, courts will declare   them to be unreasonable and therefore void.”  

(emphasis supplied)

In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Administration vs. Siri Ram – 2000  

(5) SCC 451, this Court reiterated :  

“It  is  a  well-recognised  principle  of  interpretation  of  a  statute  that  conferment  of  rule  making  power  by  an  Act  does  not  enable  the  rule  making authority  to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the  enabling Act or which is inconsistent therewith or repugnant thereto.”  

(emphasis supplied)

In Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh vs. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council   

& Ors. [2004 (8) SCC 747], this court explained the concept of delegated  

legislation thus :

“Underlying the concept of delegated legislation is the basic principle that  the legislature delegates because it cannot directly exert its will in every  detail. All it can in practice do is to lay down the outline. This means that   the  intention of  the legislature,  as  indicated  in the  outline  (that  is  the   enabling  Act),  must  be  the  prime  guide  to  the  meaning  of  delegated  legislation and the extent of the power to make it.  The true extent of the  power governs the legal meaning of the delegated legislation. The delegate  is  not  intended  to  travel  wider  than  the  object  of  the  legislature.  The  delegate’s function is to serve and promote that object, while at all times  remaining true to it. That is the rule of primary intention. Power delegated  

23

by an enactment does not enable the authority by regulations to extent the  scope or general operation of the enactment but is strictly ancillary. It will  authorise the provision of subsidiary means of carrying into effect what is  enacted  in  the  statute  itself  and  will  cover  what  is  incidental  to  the  execution  of  its  specific  provision.  But  such  a  power  will  not  support   attempts to widen the purposes of the Act, to add new and different means   of carrying them out or to depart from or vary its ends. (See Section 59 in  chaper  “Delegated  Legislation”  in  Francis  Bennion’s  Statutory  Interpretation, 3rd Edn.)”

(emphasis supplied)

In  J.  K.  Industries  vs.  Union of  India –  2007 (13)  SCC 673,  this  Court  

reiterated the grounds on which a sub-ordinate legislation can be challenged  

as follows :  

“That, any inquiry into its vires must be confined to the grounds on which  plenary legislation may be questioned, to the grounds that it is contrary to  the statute under which it is made, to the grounds that it is contrary to  other statutory provisions or on the ground that it is so patently arbitrary  that it cannot be said to be in conformity with the statute. It can also be  challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.”  

21. We will  now examine whether  the rule  is  valid in the light  of the  

aforesaid principles, that is (a) whether the rule making authority in making  

the rule has travelled beyond the scope of the Act; (b) whether the rule does  

not  conform to  the  provisions  of  the  Act;  and (c)  whether  the  rule  falls  

within  the  scope  and  purview  of  the  rule  making  power  of  the  Central  

Government under section 23 of the Act.

22. As noticed above, the object and purpose of the Act is to eliminate the  

danger to human life from the sale of adulterated food and to ensure that what  

is sold is wholesome food. In other words, if an item of food is adulterated, or  

24

is itself an adulterant (used for adulteration), or unwholesome or injurious to  

health, a rule to prevent or prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale or  

distribution of such objectionable food item will be within the scope of the  

Act. Such prohibition will be valid even in regard to incidental items such as  

misbranded food items and unlicensed food items (where licence is required).  

But where an item of food (used in the composition or preparation of human  

food and used as a flavouring) is in its natural form and is unadulterated and is  

not injurious to health, a rule cannot be made under the provisions of the Act  

to  ban the  manufacture  for  sale,  storage or  sale  of  such food item on the  

ground such ban will ensure that the populace will use a medicated form of  

such of food, which will benefit a section of the populace. Making available  

medicines or medicinal preparations to improve public health is not the object  

of the Act. If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade the people to use  

iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, recourse cannot be by  

making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the  

Act. The Act cannot be used to make a rule intended to achieve an object  

wholly unrelated to the Act. The good intention of the rule making authority is  

not therefore sufficient to save the rule. We are of the view that the Rule 44-I  

is wholly outside the scope of the Act.

23. We may next consider whether  section 7(iv) of the Act enables or  

empowers the Central Government to make Rule 44-I.  Section 7 does not  

25

relate  to  rule  making.  It  relates  to  prohibition  of  manufacture  for  sale,  

storage, sale or distribution of ‘objectionable’ food, that is adulterated food,  

misbranded food, unlicensed food, food injurious to public health.  Section  

7(iv)  provides  that  no  person  shall  manufacture  for  sale,  store,  sell  or  

distribute  any  article  of  food,  the  sale  of  which  is  for  the  time  being  

prohibited by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health.  

Rule 44-I is not a prohibition by the Food (Health) Authority in the interest  

of  public  health.  The  Food  (Health)  Authority  refers  to  the  Director  of  

Medical  and Health Services or the Chief Officer in-charge of the health  

administration  in  a  state  as  also  any  officer  empowered  by  the  central  

government or the state government by notification in the official gazette to  

exercise the power and perform the duties of the Food (Health) Authority  

with respect to such local area as may be specified in such notification. We  

are not  concerned with either  any notification by the central  government  

constituting the Food (Health) Authority nor the exercise of power by any  

Food (Health) Authority in the interest of public health. Therefore, section  

7(iv) is of no assistance to decide upon the validity of rule 44-I, nor can it be  

a source of power to make rule 44-I, nor can it be a source of power to make  

rule 44-I.

24. If  the Act vests  the power of prohibiting the manufacture for sale,  

storage or distribution of any article of food in the interests of public health,  

26

in the Food (Health) Authority,  the Central  Government cannot under its  

power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, take upon itself  

the power to prohibit the manufacture for sale, storage, sale and distribution  

of  any  article  of  food.  In  Godde  Venkateswara  Rao  vs.  Government  of   

Andhra  Pradesh [1966  (2)  SCR  172]  this  court  considered  a  similar  

question. Under section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samitis and  

Zilla Parishads Act, 1959, the power of establishing primary health centres  

was vested in the Panchayat Samitis. The question was whether the State  

Government in purported exercise of its power under section 69 of the said  

Act to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, take upon itself  

the power to establish a primary health centre at a particular centre. This  

court held that that was impermissible, observing as follows :   

“It  is  manifest  that  under  the Act  the statutory power  to  establish  and  maintain Primary Health Centres is vested in the Panchayat Samithi. There  is no provision vesting the said power in the Government. Under s. 69 of  the Act, the Government can only make rules for carrying out the purposes  of the Act; it cannot, under the guise of the said rules, convert an authority  with  power  to  establish  a  Primary  Health  Centre  into  only  a  recommendatory body. It cannot, by any rule, vest in itself a power which  under the Act vests in another body. The rules, therefore, in so far as they  transfer  the power  of the Panchayat  Samithi  to  the Government,  being  inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, must yield to s. 18 of the Act.”  

25. We may next consider whether clause (f) of section 23(1A) empowers  

the  Central  Government  to  make  Rule  44-I.  The said  clause  enables  the  

central  government  to  make  rules  prohibiting  the  sale  or  defining  the  

conditions  of  sale  of  any substance “which may be injurious  to health  

27

when used as food” or restricting in any manner its use as an ingredient in  

the manufacture of any article of food or regulating by the issue of licence  

the manufacture or sale of any article of food. It is the specific case of the  

respondent that the use of non-iodized salt is not injurious to health. The  

Government of India has filed two counter affidavits in WP(C) No.80/2006.  

In para 3 of the first affidavit filed on 3.4.2006, the  respondent specifically  

admits as follows :

“...the respondent has never stated that the use of any non-iodised   salt  is  injurious  to  health. …… the  restriction  on  sale  of  non- iodised  salt  have  been  issued  in  view  of  the  fact  that  regular  consumption  of  iodised  salt  ensures  prevention  and  control  of  Iodine Deficiency Disorder.”  

(emphasis supplied)

In the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 30.3.2009, the  

respondent has again reiterated as follows :

“That the respondent has never stated that the use of non- iodised salt is injurious to health…… That there is no blanket ban  on sale of common salt. The ban on sale of common salt has been  imposed (by Rule 44-I)only for direct human consumption. Thus  the  ban on  sale  of  direct  salt  for  human consumption  has  been  imposed in the interest of public health.”

(emphasis supplied)

Section  23(1A)(f)  empowers  making  a  rule  to  prohibit  sale  only  if  the  

substance is injurious to health when used as food. If use of common salt is  

not injurious to health, the question of making a rule prohibiting the sale of  

28

such a substance would not arise under clause (f) of section 23(1A) of the  

Act.

26. We will next consider whether section 23(1) of the Act provides the  

source of authority to make rule 44-I. Sub-section (1) of section 23 provides  

that  the  central  government  may  after  consultation  with  the  Central  

Committee for Food Standards (constituted under section 3 of the Act) and  

after previous publication by notification in the public gazette make rules to  

carry out  the provisions of the Act. Statutes delegating the power to make  

rules follow a standard pattern. The relevant section would first contain a  

provision granting the power to make rules to the delegate in general terms,  

by using the words ‘to carry out the provisions of this Act’ or ‘to carry out  

the purposes of this Act’. This is usually followed by another sub-section  

enumerating the matters/areas in regard to which specific power is delegated  

by using the words ‘in particular and without prejudice to the generality of  

the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following  

matters.”  Interpreting such provisions, this Court in a number of decisions  

has held that where power is conferred to make subordinate legislation in  

general terms, the subsequent particularisation of the matters/topics has to be  

construed as merely illustrative and not limiting the scope of the general  

power.  Consequently,  even  if  the  specific  enumerated  topics  in  section  

23(1A) may not empower the Central Government to make the impugned  

29

rule (Rule 44-I), making of the Rule can be justified with reference to the  

general  power  conferred  on  the  central  government  under  section  23(1),  

provided the rule does not travel beyond the scope of the Act. But even a  

general power to make rules or regulations for carrying out or giving effect  

to the Act, is strictly ancillary in nature and cannot enable the authority on  

whom the power is conferred to extend the scope of general operation of the  

Act.  Therefore,  such  a  power  “will  not  support  attempts  to  widen  the  

purposes of the Act, to add new and different means to carrying them out, to  

depart from or vary its terms. (See: Principles of Statutory Interpretation by  

Justice G. P. Singh – 12th Edition page 1009) referring to Shanahan v . Scott  

- 1957 (96) CLR 245 and Utah Construction v. Pataky – [1965 (3) All ER  

650]. Rule 44-I is not a rule made or required to be made to carry out the  

provisions of the Act, having regard to its object and scheme. It has nothing  

to do with curbing of food adulteration or to suppress any social or economic  

mischief.  

What Relief?  

27. We have already noticed that as at present there is no material to show  

that universal salt iodisation will be injurious to public health (that is to the  

majority of populace who do not suffer from iodine deficiency). But we are  

constrained to hold that rule 44-I is ultra vires the Act and therefore, not  

valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human  

30

consumption  will  be  raised,  which  may  not  be  in  the  interest  of  public  

health.  We are therefore,  of the  view that  the central  government should  

have  at  least  six  months  time  to  thoroughly  review  the  compulsory  

iodisation  policy  (universal  salt  iodisation  for  human  consumption)  with  

reference to latest inputs and research data and if after such review, is of the  

view  that  universal  iodisation  scheme  requires  to  be  continued,  bring  

appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law to continue  

the compulsory iodisation programme.  

28. The question is having held that Rule 44-I to be invalid, whether we  

can permit the continuation of the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human  

consumption for any period. Article 142 of the Constitution vests unfettered  

independent jurisdiction to pass any order in public interest to do complete  

justice,  if  exercise  of  such jurisdiction  is  not  be  contrary  to  any express  

provision of law. In  Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India –  

1998 (4) SCC 409, this Court observed:  

“The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has  the power to make such order as is  necessary for doing complete justice   “between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it”. The very  nature of the power must lead the court to set limits for itself within which  to  exercise  those  powers  and  ordinarily  it  cannot  disregard  a  statutory  provision  governing  a  subject,  except  perhaps  to  balance  the  equities  between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the  creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of  restricted jurisdiction of only dispute settling.  It  is well  recognised and  established that this court has always been a law maker and its role travels  beyond merely dispute settling.  It is a "problem solver in the nebulous  areas". (See. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India – 1991 (3) SCC 655, but the  substantive statutory provisions dealing with the subject matter of a given  case, cannot be altogether ignored by this court, while making an order  

31

under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers can not, in any way,  be  controlled  by any  statutory  provisions  but  at  the  same  time  these  powers  are  not  meant  to  be  exercised  when  their  exercise  may  come  directly in conflict  with what has been expressly provided for in statute  dealing expressly with the subject.”

In  Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs.  Rajesh Ranjan – 2005 (3) SCC 284, this  

Court after reiterating that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under  

Article  142  of  the Constitution would not  pass any order  which would  

amount to supplanting substantive law applicable to the case or ignoring  

express statutory provisions dealing with the subject, observed as follows:  

“It may therefore be understood that the plenary powers of this Court un- der Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court and are com- plementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court   by various statutes though are not limited by those statutes. These powers  also exist independent of the statutes with a view to do complete justice  between the parties...and are in the nature of supplementary powers...[and]  may be put on a different and perhaps even wider footing than ordinary in- herent powers of a court to prevent injustice. The advantage that is derived  from a constitutional provision couched in such a wide compass is that it  prevents 'clogging or obstruction of the stream of justice. [See : Supreme  Court Bar Association (supra)]”

29. In view of the above and to do complete justice between the parties in  

the interest of public health, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142  

of the Constitution, we direct the continuation of the ban contained in Rule  

44-I for a period of six months.  The central  government may within that  

period  review the  compulsory  iodisation  programme and if  it  decides  to  

continue,  may  introduce  appropriate  legislative  or  other  measures.  It  is  

needless to say that if it  fails to take any action within the expiry of six  

months from today, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.  

32

30. We therefore allow this writ petition in part and declare that Rule 44-I  

of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (inserted by Prevention  

of Food Adulteration (Eighth Amendment) Rules 2005) is beyond the rule-

making power of the Central Government and ultra vires the Act subject to  

the continuation of the ban contained in Rule 44-I for a period of six months  

in terms of the previous paragraph. The Transferred Cases are also disposed  

of in terms of the decision in the writ petition.  

      .......................................J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi;         .........................................J. July 4, 2011.      (B Sudershan Reddy)        

33

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Transfer Case (Civil) No.11/2002     

Swadesi Jagram Manch and others … Petitioners

vs.

State of Orissa and another … Respondents

WITH

WP(C) No.80/2006 and WP (C) No.175/2006 Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos.92, 152, 168, 185 and 218  of  2009

O R D E R  

Transfer Petition (C) Nos.92/2009, 152/2009, 168/2009, 185/2009  

and 218/2009 are allowed and the following writ petitions are transferred  

from the respective High Court to this Court :  

(1)   WP(C) No.4204/2006 on the file of the Madras High Court (2)  WP(C) No.341/2006 on the file of the Bombay High Court (3)  WP(C) No.13082/2006 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (4)  WP(C) No.13354/2006 on the file of the Karnataka High Court (5)  PIL No. 61/2006 on the file of the Bombay High Court

2. Judgment is pronounced in WP(C) No.80 of 2006 and the aforesaid  

five transferred cases, allowing them in terms of the Judgement.   

3. Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.175/2006  and  Transfer  Case  (Civil)  

No.11/2002 are delinked from the aforesaid cases which are disposed of,  

34

as they do not relate to challenge to Rule 44-I of Prevention of Food  

Adulteration  Rules  1955.  Transfer  Case  (Civil)  No.11/2002  seeks  

quashing of  a  notification  dated  15.10.2001 issued  by the  Director  of  

Health Services, Orissa prohibiting sale and manufacture of common salt  

other  than  iodised  salt  for  human  consumption,  issued  in  exercise  of  

power under the relevant state Rules. Writ Petition (Civil) No.175/2006 is  

filed seeking a direction to the central government to frame a uniform  

policy for the control of goitre and a direction regarding imposing ban on  

the manufacture of non-iodised salt all over the country.  

4. While  disposing  of  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.80/2006,  we  have  

granted  six  months  time  to  review  the  position  regarding  universal  

iodisation. In view of the above, list these two matters for further orders,  

after six months.   

......................................J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ......................................J. July 4, 2011.      (B Sudershan Reddy)  

35