Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954  - Section 7 , Section 23

Rule 44-I - Insertion of - Constitutional validity - Challenge - Sections 7(iv) and 23 - Scope of in relation to Rule 44-I - Restriction on sale of common salt - Whether Rule 44-I is unconstitutional - No - Whether Rule 44-I is inconsistent with the Act and beyond the rule making power of the Central Government - Yes - Whether section 7(iv) of the Act enables or empowers the Central Government to make Rule 44-I - Whether clause (f) of section 23(1A) empowers the Central Government to make Rule 44-I - No - Government of India took 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, thus, the provision placing a ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption resulting in compulsory intake of iodised salt, is neither arbitrary and violative of Article 14 nor injurious to the health of general populace and therefore violative of Article 21 - No material to show that universal salt iodisation will be injurious to public health - Supreme Court - 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 - Rule 44-I of the PFA Rules, 1955 is declared 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 and the Central Government to review the compulsory iodisation programme in the meantime - Writ petition allowed.

Topic(s)-PF Act - Insertion of Constitutional validity

Important Decision(s)-PF Act - No material to show that universal salt iodisation will be injurious to public health.