Public health regulation over gutka and pan masala upheld; interim stay refused against the statutory prohibition order.

The Bombay High Court held that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is a comprehensive later enactment whose wide definition of food can include gutka and pan masala, and that the 2011 Food Safety Regulations validly prohibited tobacco, nicotine and harmful ingredients in food products. An order issued under Section 30(2)(a) in the interest of public health was treated as prima facie valid, supported by material on the harmful and potentially carcinogenic effects of the ingredients. The Court rejected objections based on natural justice, treating the order as quasi-legislative, and also rejected the challenge under Articles 301 to 304 because the measure regulated public health rather than creating trade barriers. Interim stay was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief staying implementation of the statutory order prohibiting manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of gutka and pan masala containing tobacco, nicotine or magnesium carbonate, and whether the 2011 Food Safety Regulations and the impugned order were prima facie valid under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was treated as a comprehensive and later enactment governing food safety and standards, with the definition of food wide enough to include gutka and pan masala. The 2011 Regulations, made under the Act and laid before Parliament, prohibited use of tobacco, nicotine and certain harmful ingredients in food products, and the statutory order was issued in exercise of power under Section 30(2)(a) of the Act in the interest of public health. The materials placed before the Court indicated harmful and potentially carcinogenic effects of the ingredients in issue, and the Court distinguished the earlier position under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act. The objection based on natural justice was rejected on the view that the order was quasi-legislative and founded on statutory standards, and the challenge under Articles 301 to 304 was also rejected as the order did not create trade barriers but enforced public-health regulation.

Conclusion: Interim stay of the impugned statutory order was not warranted, and the prayer for interim relief was rejected.

---