The prohibition will, however, continue for six months
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.
The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.
“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”
“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.
“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.
The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine levels.”
Keywords: PFA Act, salt ban, iodised salt
I am a hyperthyroid patient.I should not take iodine.But the salt available in market is with iodine.I am unable to get non-iodised salt anywhere in the market in India.If the non-iodised salt is banned in the market,why can't it be available atleast in the pharmacies,so that we patients can buy it under doctor's prescription.Any healthy or unhealthy person requires only few micrograms of salt intake.Unnecessary intake of over dose of iodine is leading to many abnormalities.Why these facts are not being considered?
We need to take fresh vegetables. Every Indian consumes vegetables regularly. Bring about awareness of consuming fresh vegetables there will be no need for extra iodine in teh form of iodised salt.
Even though the Supreme Court has annulled the ban on non-iodised salt on legal grounds, there are equally compelling grounds for lifting this ban on pragmatic considerations. The effects of the ban, in its implementation, have been negative. Iodised salt looks, smells and tastes exactly like common salt. However, available testing method and procedure is unscientific and non-specific. At the production centres, the salt officers are incapable of ensuring compliance of the ban. Equally disquieting is the prevalent myth, even among those educated public, that only branded refined salt is iodised. Any type of salt, crystal, crushed, powder etc, could be iodised without too much of an expense. Branded consumer packs are artificially high-priced and those refined are less of a natural product. Its sodium content has been enhanced by leaching out calcium and magnesium contents. It is a moot question whether this is harmless product, especially for those who are victims of hyper-tension.
Kitchen knives are much more dangerous to public safety than non-iodised salt.
Knives continue to be sold.
Then why did govt make a law to ban non-iodised salt ? Ridiculous.
The parliament should not make silly laws, what a waste of national resources !
We want less number of laws. Each law should be very clear. Not a diarrhoea of confsed laws. Then enforcement will be easy too.
Another form of perception management. The PLM - Politico-Legal-Media, at its best - organised by companies making iodised salt. (salt is big business - remember the word salary comes from salt which was given to soldiers in the past). Its all about money, honey.
Please Email the Editor