Apex court extends ban on non-iodized salt sale (Lead)
July 10th, 2011 - 12:35 am ICT by IANSNew Delhi, July 9 (IANS) The Supreme Court has extended by six more months the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption and asked the government to take legislative or other steps to impose curbs of more permanent nature.
“We direct the continuation of the ban contained in Rule 44-I (of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act) for a period of six months,” the apex court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (who has now retired) said in the recent judgment.
Justice Raveendran said: “The central government may within that period review the compulsory iodization 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.”
The apex court verdict came on a batch of petitions by several NGOs representing consumers, salt producers, medical experts and academics challenging the constitutional validity of the ban and the justification of its grounds.
“We therefore reject the contention that the provision placing a ban on sale of non-iodized salt for human consumption, resulting in compulsory intake of iodized salt, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 or injurious to the health of general populace and therefore violative of Article 21 (of the constitution).”
“The use of common salt (non-iodized salt) for industrial and commercial use has not been prohibited. The ban operates only in regard to use of common salt for human consumption. There 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,” the judgment said.
The petitioner NGOs opposing the compulsory iodization of salt contended that iodine deficiency disorders occurred not only in areas deficient in iodine but also in areas where the water supply was contaminated.
The court while declining to go into the policy matter and matters relating to expert opinion said it was neither equipped nor expected to go into and decide about the “need or absence of need for such universal salt iodization on the basis of some articles and reports placed before it”.
- Supreme Court extends ban on non-iodized salt sale - Jul 10, 2011
- '50 percent Indian kids suffer from iodine deficiency' - Oct 21, 2010
- Tata Chemicals launches anti-anaemia fortified salt - Apr 05, 2012
- Iodized salt usage up by 20 percent in rural households: Study - Apr 25, 2011
- India to promote iron rich salt to check malnutrition - Apr 20, 2011
- 25 percent seats for poor under education act upheld (Second Lead) - Apr 12, 2012
- Apex court wants zero tolerance for police atrocities - Nov 05, 2011
- Radiation fears trigger panic buying of salt in China - Mar 19, 2011
- Supreme Court upholds jail term for paedophile convicts - Mar 18, 2011
- Jharkhand to provide lunch for Rs.5 to the poor - Aug 03, 2011
- Chinese seawater safe from radiation - Mar 18, 2011
- No funds for iron rich salt programme, says official - Apr 25, 2011
- Apex court reserves verdict on anti-gay sex petitions (Lead) - Mar 27, 2012
- Supreme Court judge Sudershan Reddy retires - Jul 07, 2011
- Panel gets time to study 44 deemed universities' replies - Apr 12, 2011
Tags: apex court, article 14, article 21, central government, common salt, constitutional validity, contention, court bench, court verdict, curbs, human consumption, iodine deficiency disorders, iodised salt, medical experts, mncs, non iodized salt, petitioner, populace, raveendran, salt producers