Supreme Court of India

SWADESI JAGARAN MANCHversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

Citation: 2011 INSC 433
Decided: 4 July 2011
Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Bench: R V RAVEENDRANB SUDERSHAN REDDY

Holding

The Court allowed the transferred petitions, delinked unrelated matters, and postponed further orders on the remaining challenges pending a six‑month review of the universal iodisation policy.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which bans the sale and manufacture of non‑iodised common salt. Several writ petitions and transfer petitions challenging this rule were consolidated, and the Court allowed the transfer of five pending cases from various High Courts for a unified decision. It delinked two matters—Writ Petition 175/2006 seeking a uniform national policy on goitre control and Transfer Case 11/2002 challenging an Odisha notification prohibiting non‑iodised salt—because they did not directly contest Rule 44. The Court affirmed the judgment in Writ Petition 80/2006, granting the Central Government six months to review the universal iodisation policy, and ordered that the two delinked matters be listed for further orders after that period. Consequently, the transferred petitions were allowed, while the two specific challenges remain pending pending the six‑month review.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prohibiting non‑iodised salt
Whether a State can issue a notification banning non‑iodised salt under its health rules
The need for a uniform national policy on goitre control and universal iodisation

Legislation cited

Subjects

Constitutional lawFood safetyIodised saltPublic healthRule 44Universal iodisationWrit petitionTransfer petitionState notification

Judgment

•                     (2011] 8 S.C.R. 723


                 SWADESI JAGARAN MANCH                                A
                                 v.
                  STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
              (Transferred case no(s) 11 of 2002)
                          JULY 4, 2011                                B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
        Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: r.441 -
 Prohibition on sale and manufacture of common salt - Writ
 petition no. 80 of 2006 wherein constitutionality of r. 44 was C
 under challenge was disposed of and six months time was
granted to Central Government to review position regarding
 universal iodisation - Transferred petitions 9212009, 1521
 2009, 16812009, 18512009 and 21812009 allowed in terms of
judgment in Writ petition no. 80 of 2006 - Writ petition no. 1751
 2006 and Transfer case 1112002 de/inked from writ petition D
no. 80 of 2006 since dispute therein did not relate to challenge
 to r. 441 - In view of that, pending matters to be listed for further
 orders after six months.
        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case No.
 11 of 2002 etc.                                                       E
     Under Article 139A of the Constitution of India.
                                 WITH
TC (C) No. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 of 2011 And
WP (C) No. 80, 175 of 2006.                                           F
    Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Balraj Dewan, Vishwajit Singh,
Himanshu Munshi for the Appellants.
     Naresh Kaushik, Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Sushma
Suri, 8.8. Singh for the Respondents.                                G
     The following order of the Court was delivered
                            ORDER
     Transfer Petition (C) Nos.92/2009, 152/2009, 168/2009,
                               723                                    H
    724     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 8 S.C.R.      •
A 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
B        (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
c              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
D 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, as they do not relate to challenge to Rule 44-
  1 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955. Transfer Case
E (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)
F 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
G 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.
    D.G.                    Writ Petition (c) No. 175 of 2006 and
                   Transfer case (c) No. 11 of 2002 are pending.
H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Constitutional law"Sign in to search