https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166932 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. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166932 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166932