Delhi High Court: A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that Regulation 2(i) (‘impugned Regulation’) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Second Amendment Regulations, 2022 (‘Second Amendment Regulations’) published on 11-10-2022 be declared as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioners also seek a declaration that the impugned Regulation is ultra vires of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (‘FSS Act’). A division bench of Manmohan, CJ., and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., dismissed the writ petition, affirming the validity of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Regulations, 2023, emphasizing their alignment with public health protection and the adequacy of compliance timelines, while rejecting claims of discrimination or disproportionate impact.
The petitioners, who include a company licensed to manufacture and trade Pan Masala brands like Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba, are challenging a new regulation from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) that requires Pan Masala packages to feature a statutory warning that covers 50% of the front label, up from the previous 3mm size. They argued that this change unfairly limits their ability to prominently display their brand names and trademarks, impacting their business. They believe the increase in warning size is disproportionate and creates a disadvantage compared to other regulated products like alcohol, which have smaller warnings.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) overstepped its authority by implementing Regulation 2(i) and such regulations should be based on thorough ‘risk assessment’ conducted by the Scientific Panel and Committee under the FSS Act. He even criticized the lack of scientific studies or data supporting the need for the larger warning size, suggesting that the existing warnings have been effective.
Counsel for Respondent 2 argued that it is a necessary step in ‘risk management’ under the FSS Act. He pointed out that warnings on Pan Masala packages have been mandated since 1990, updated in 2011, and now in 2022, with the increased size intended to enhance consumer awareness of health risks associated with Pan Masala consumption. He also emphasized that the decision was based on scientific opinions and studies confirming these health risks, including evidence from the World Health Organization (WHO) classifying Areca nut as a Group-1 cancer-causing agent.
The Court noted that the regulation was preceded by comprehensive scientific studies and expert reports dating from 2015 to 2018. These studies consistently highlighted the health risks associated with Pan Masala, leading to recommendations for increased warning sizes on packaging similar to those for tobacco products. The regulatory change, initiated after consultations in 2018 and 2019, aimed to align with global health standards and ensure public awareness of the health hazards posed by Areca nut.
Regarding concerns over trademark space infringement, the Court found that the regulation did not unduly restrict the display of trademarks or brand names. It emphasized that public health considerations outweighed private commercial interests, citing precedents where public health imperatives justified regulatory measures despite objections from affected industries.
The Court also addressed claims of unequal treatment compared to alcohol products, highlighting ongoing considerations for similar warning size enhancements in the alcohol industry. It underscored that public health policies must evolve in response to new scientific evidence and global health norms, as seen in the context of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
Thus, the Court upheld the regulation, finding it proportionate and necessary in promoting public health objectives. It concluded that the increased warning size was a legitimate measure to inform consumers about the health risks associated with Pan Masala, aligning with constitutional principles of safeguarding public health over private commercial interests.
[Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4702, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nalin Talwar, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Bhavya Bhatia, Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Bhavya Bhatia, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Mr. Aashish Kaushik, Mr. Jatin Nirwan, Ms. Divyanshi Mohan, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, Govt. Pleader, for R-1/UOI
Mr. Aditya Singla, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Saakshi Garg, Mr. Ritwik Saha and Mr. Rahul, Advocates for R-2/FSSAI
Buy Constitution of India HERE
