Delegated legislation cannot expand the parent statute: ban on non-iodised salt failed despite constitutional challenge.

Rule 44-I banning the sale of non-iodised common salt for human consumption was upheld against constitutional challenge because the Court treated universal salt iodisation as a public health policy choice within expert domain and found no material showing manifest arbitrariness, unreasonable trade restriction, or violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21. The rule was nevertheless struck down as ultra vires the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, because delegated legislation cannot enlarge the parent Act's scheme; the Act addressed adulteration and wholesome food, and did not authorise a nationwide ban on natural, unadulterated salt merely to advance a beneficial medical policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, banning sale of non-iodised common salt for human consumption, is unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether Rule 44-I is inconsistent with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, banning sale of non-iodised common salt for human consumption, is unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge was examined in the context of a disputed scientific and medical question concerning universal salt iodisation. The Court held that such public health policy choices lie primarily within the domain of expert decision-making and are not to be displaced by judicial evaluation of medical literature unless the policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. The material placed before the Court did not establish that compulsory iodisation was unreasonable, arbitrary, or injurious to the general populace, nor that it created an impermissible monopoly or unreasonably restricted trade.

Conclusion: Rule 44-I was not held unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 44-I is inconsistent with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government.

Analysis: The Court construed the Act as a statute aimed at preventing adulteration of food and safeguarding wholesome food, and held that a delegated rule cannot enlarge the object of the parent Act. Common salt in its natural, unadulterated form was not shown to be adulterated or injurious to health, and the Act did not authorise the Central Government to impose a nationwide ban on its sale for human consumption merely to promote a medically beneficial policy. The specific reliance on section 7(iv) and section 23(1A)(f) was rejected, and the general rule-making power under section 23(1) was held insufficient to support a measure outside the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: Rule 44-I was held to be ultra vires the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and beyond the Central Government's rule-making power.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed, but the impugned rule was struck down as beyond the parent statute, with temporary continuation of the ban directed in exercise of constitutional power to balance public health concerns.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegated legislation must remain within the scope, object, and enabling power of the parent statute, and a rule enacted to promote a public health objective unrelated to the statute's scheme is ultra vires even if the objective is beneficial.

---