Raj. HC: No Jurisdiction on DRT to Modify Settlement Terms in Appli. Filed after Disposal of Matter  ||  Kar. HC: Second Petition u/s 482 of CrPC Not Maintainable Unless Founded Upon Change in Circumstance  ||  Centre to Delhi HC: In Process of Framing Rules Under New Online Gaming Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Compelling DNA Tests without Imminent Need becomes Violative of Article 21  ||  SC: TET Qualification Mandatory for Teachers in Minority Institutions  ||  SC: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer a Valid Title on a Party as it is Not a Deed of Conveyance  ||  SC Criticizes NGT for Outsourcing its Responsibilities to External Committees  ||  SC: No Culprit Should Manage an Acquittal on the Basis of Unreasonable Doubts  ||  Delhi High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas of Umar Khalid and Other Accused in 2020 Delhi Riots Case  ||  Supreme Court Judges Launch Schemes for Human -Wildlife Conflict    

Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (02 Aug 2004)

Winding a fine line between ‘public interest’ and interest

MANU/SC/0574/2004

Civil

Tobacco advertising occupies a grey area in the debate on moral policing. On the one hand is consumer will and freedom to consume a legal substance, on the other the many possible harms of ingesting tobacco in any form. Saving the public from themselves or just another agenda guised as moral?

The Central Government is vested with authority to declare food or other articles as injurious to health and prohibit distribution of the same, to varying extents, in the interest of public health. Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 in fact allows its tremendous latitude in controlling articles for human consumption in the interest of public health.

Various State governments interpreted the same authority as also extending to them and notifications banning the manufacture, sale and distribution of pan masala and gutka in the State, either indefinitely or for prolonged periods.

The Supreme Court was unequivocal in its ruling: banning and prohibiting food and associated articles was in the exclusive domain of Parliament. State bans could be “only of transitory nature”, lasting short periods of time. State food and health authorities did not have the power to prohibit manufacture, sale, etc. State law that overrode national Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was ultra vires, the Supreme Court held. The judgment never discussed divergent policy-making of States, nor did it enter into the appropriateness or reasonableness of the policy. Perhaps that was the Court’s silent obiter: allowing a reasonable exercise of power would have opened the door to yet more arbitrariness.

Relevant : Tulsipur Sugar Co. MANU/SC/0336/1980 Union of India and Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0076/1987 Section 7 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Tags : PAN MASALA   PUBLIC INTEREST   BAN   STATE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved