Chewing tobacco as food under the FSS Act: broad statutory definition and tobacco restrictions upheld
Chewing tobacco was treated as a banned food product within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 because the statutory definition of food was read broadly and the Act's overriding and regulatory provisions, including the prohibition on tobacco and nicotine as ingredients, were applied. Relying on binding precedent that gutkha and chewable tobacco fall within the Act, the Court held that the State notification restricting manufacture, storage, transport, distribution and sale reinforced the regulatory scheme. On that basis, the food analyst's report and the resulting proceedings were not found to suffer from any jurisdictional defect, and the challenge on that ground failed.
Issues: (i) Whether chewing tobacco is a food product falling within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and its regulations. (ii) Whether the food analyst's report and the consequential action lacked jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether chewing tobacco is a food product falling within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and its regulations.
Analysis: The statutory definition of food is wide enough to cover any substance intended for human consumption, and it expressly includes chewing gum while excluding only the categories specifically carved out by the statute. The Court relied on the later binding precedent of the First Bench, which held that gutkha and chewable tobacco are covered by the Act, and also noted the continuing force of the statutory overriding clause and the regulatory prohibition against using tobacco and nicotine as ingredients in food products. The State notification prohibiting manufacture, storage, transport, distribution and sale of such products further reinforced the statutory regime.
Conclusion: Chewing tobacco is a banned food product within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the contention to the contrary was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the food analyst's report and the consequential action lacked jurisdiction.
Analysis: Once chewing tobacco was held to fall within the Act, the analyst's examination and report could not be treated as without authority. The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the impugned report or the proceedings based on it, while clarifying that the petitioner's innocence and other defences would remain open for appropriate proceedings.
Conclusion: The challenge to the food analyst's report on jurisdictional grounds failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because chewable tobacco was held to be within the regulatory sweep of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the impugned action was found to be legally sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Chewable tobacco falls within the statutory concept of food under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Act's overriding and regulatory provisions permit action against its manufacture and sale notwithstanding its characterization as tobacco.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
