THE SALT ‘RULE’

The government was promoting the use of iodised salt in place of common salt, since 1962 to control Iodine Deficiency Disorders including Goitre (for short TD Ds’). In April, 1992, the Central Committee for Food Standards (CCFS), a statutory body providing technical advice to the Government on food-related matters, approved the proposal for mandatory iodisation of salt only in respect of edible salt for direct human consumption and not in regard to salt meant for commercial use by the food industry.

The states either restricted or prohibited use of non-iodised salt for human consumption under Section 7(iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In 1997 Union Government inserted Rule 44H in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 banning the sale of non-iodised common salt for direct human consumption throughout the country.

The Rule 44 (1) says, “No person shall sell or offer to expose for sale or have in his premises for the purpose of sale, the common salt, for direct human consumption unless the same is iodized:

Provided that common salt may be sold or exposed for sale or stores for sale for iodization, iron fortification, animal use, preservation, manufacturing medicines, and industrial use, under proper label declarations, as specified under Clause (22) of Sub-rule (zzz) of Rule 42.”

The Academy of Nutrition Improvement challenged this insertion as unconstitutional and invalid.

Core Advisory Group on Public Health & Human Rights, National Human Rights Commission in its report on 6.2.2004 advised universal iodisation of salt and opposed any relaxation in the ban on sale of non-iodised salt.

The petitioners argued that goiter and other ID Ds occur not only in areas deficient in iodine but also in areas where (i) water supply is contaminated, (ii) water is hard, (iii) poor hygiene prevails on account of poverty, (iv) foods contain iodine inhibitory (goitrogenic) substances; (v) functioning of thyroid gland is improper; and (vi) consumption of processed and preserved food was excessive.

They also stated that when people who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine levels. Constant use ofiodised salt would lead to iodine-induced hyper-thyroidism with increased chances of death. While iodised salt would help to make up the iodine deficiency in about 10% of the populace, it would adversely affect the health of remaining 90% of the populace who have no deficiency in iodine levels, as contended by petitioner.

The cost of iodised salt being several times more than the cost of non-iodised salt, the majority of the populace are adversely affected by the rule requiring compulsory iodisation. The compulsory use of iodised salt only helped a few multinational companies (MNCs) which had the monopoly in the manufacture of iodised salt and many small scale and local producers of salt were adversely affected by creation of such monopoly. Thus petitioners, therefore, contended that Rule 44I is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as it affected the fundamental right of small and medium scale manufacturers to carry on their business in salt. Another interesting contention is that the common salt is an unadulterated article used as an ingredient in food and Rule 44I imposing a ban on its sale for human consumption does not conform to, and is inconsistent with the object of the statute under which it is made. The SC rejected the plea that ban was arbitrary and violated Article 14 and also Article 21 because it injures health. Another contention that the ban violated freedom to do business under 19(1) (g) was also rejected because industrial and commercial use of noniodised salt was not prohibited.

Section 7 of the Act related to prohibition of making and selling injurious food. Section 23(1A) (f) empowers making a rule to prohibit sale only if the substance is injurious to health when used as food. If use of common salt is not injurious to health, the question of making a rule prohibiting the sale of such a substance would not arise under this clause. Thus the Supreme Court held that Rule 44I is ultra vires, and therefore, not valid. Judges R V Raveendran and B Sudershan Reddy delivered this interesting judgment on 4th July 2011 and reported in Academy of Nutrition Improvement and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) (2011) 8 SCC 274.