The Delhi High Court upheld a law requiring health warnings to cover 50% of the front side of pan masala packaging. The mandate aims to inform consumers about the harmful effects of pan masala.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court upheld the regulation requiring pan masala companies to display statutory health warnings covering 50% of the front side of their packaging. This ruling aims to inform consumers about the harmful effects of pan masala.
A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) introduced this regulation to promote public health and increase consumer awareness about the risks associated with chewing pan masala.
The Court criticized the pan masala companies for challenging the regulation, stating their opposition was motivated by self-interest aimed at protecting their sales, which could decline if they complied with the new requirements.
The High Court concluded,
“The intention of the Food Authority in introducing the impugned regulation is to ensure that the statutory health warning statement serves as a crucial public health measure and is highly visible to consumers. Increasing the size of the warning statements from 3mm to 50% of the front-of-pack label is an effective measure that does not disproportionately impact the rights of the petitioners. Considering these parameters, this Court holds that the impugned regulation meets the test of proportionality,”
The Court dismissed the plea filed by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, the manufacturer of products such as Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba. Dharampal Satyapal approached the High Court, seeking a declaration that Regulation 2(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Second Amendment Regulations, 2022, is unconstitutional.
They argued that it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom of expression, and the right to practice any trade or profession. Additionally, the company sought a declaration that the regulation exceeded the powers granted by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The company pointed out that the previous regulation mandated a statutory warning size of 3 millimetres, while the new regulation requires the warning to cover 50% of the front of the package. They contended that the regulation was implemented without following the statutory process and without consulting the scientific panel or committee to justify the decision.
However, the Division Bench ruled that the new regulation reflects the legislative intent to protect the larger public interest, which is of utmost importance. The Court also noted that a pan masala company could not equate itself with alcohol companies, which required to have a 3 mm health warning on alcohol bottles.
Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Vivek Kohli, along with advocates Nalin Talwar, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Bhavya Bhatia, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Aashish Kaushik, Jatin Nirwan, and Divyanshi Mohan, represented the petitioner-company.
The Union of India represented by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Anurag Ahluwalia and advocate Tarveen Singh Nanda. Advocates Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Saakshi Garg, Ritwik Saha, and Rahul represented the FSSAI.
Read Judgement: [Dharampal Satyapal Limited and Anr v Union of India]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
