Chewable tobacco as food under safety law, with CBI transfer ordered for an inter-State illegal trade probe.

Gutkha and similar chewable tobacco products were treated as "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 because the definition in Section 3(j) was read broadly to cover substances intended for human consumption, including chewing products. The Court held that the ban on tobacco and nicotine ingredients under the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011 operates consistently with the Act and is not displaced by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. It further held that allegations of inter-State illegal manufacture, distribution and official complicity justified transfer of the investigation to the CBI under Article 226 to secure a fair and credible probe.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether gutkha and other chewable tobacco products fall within the definition of "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and are amenable to regulation under the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011. (ii) Whether, in view of the alleged inter-State illegal manufacture, import, distribution and sale of banned chewable tobacco and the alleged involvement of public officials, the investigation should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Issue (i): Whether gutkha and other chewable tobacco products fall within the definition of "food" under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and are amenable to regulation under the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011.

Analysis: The definition of "food" under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is of wide amplitude and includes any substance intended for human consumption, as well as chewing gum. The Court held that gutkha and similar chewable tobacco products are consumed in a manner that brings them within that broad definition. It further held that the prohibition on tobacco and nicotine as ingredients in food products under Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011 operates in harmony with the Act and is not displaced by the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The Court declined to follow the contrary view taken in earlier single-bench orders and preferred the broader construction consistent with the object of the statute.

Conclusion: Gutkha and other chewable tobacco products were held to be food within the meaning of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and were held to be subject to the regulatory ban.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the alleged inter-State illegal manufacture, import, distribution and sale of banned chewable tobacco and the alleged involvement of public officials, the investigation should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Analysis: The Court held that the allegations disclosed an organized illegal trade with inter-State ramifications, involving possible breaches of Central laws and allegations of corruption touching officials of the Central and State Governments. It held that a fair, impartial and credible investigation was necessary and that transfer to a centralized agency would better cover the full chain of manufacture, import, supply, distribution, sale and alleged complicity. The Court further held that the constitutional power of judicial review under Article 226 permitted such a direction and that the absence of State consent under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 did not bar a transfer ordered by the Court. It also held that the earlier proceedings relied on by the respondents did not preclude relief on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The investigation was directed to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in substance. The Court affirmed the regulatory character of the ban on chewable tobacco products and ordered a centralized investigation to ensure a fair and comprehensive probe into the illegal trade and related corruption allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prohibited chewable tobacco products fall within the statutory definition of food and the illegal trade has inter-State ramifications with allegations of official complicity, the High Court may, in exercise of Article 226, direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation to secure a fair, impartial and credible enquiry.

---