New Delhi: The Delhi High Court upheld food safety regulator FSSAI's decision to increase the size of legal warnings against health harm on pan masala packets to 50 per cent of the front of the label from the previous 3mm .
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan dismissed a petition by a pan masala maker, challenging a notification issued by the FSSAI in October 2022, and said the order gives effect to the legislative intent to safeguard the broader public interest in health, which is paramount and outweighs the individual loss to a manufacturer.
"The present writ petition stands dismissed along with the pending application," the bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said in the July 9 judgment.
The petitioners, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, an authorized manufacturer and trader of pan masala brands Rajnigandha, Tansen and Mastaba, and one of its shareholders had also sought "sufficient time" to comply with the new packaging requirement if the petition was dismissed.
In its ruling, the court said that the petitioner company had already been given enough time to change the packaging of its product and comply with the regulations.
"In view of our findings on the defects of the challenged regulation, we are not willing to grant further time to the petitioner to allow the transition of the packaging of its product," he said.
The petitioners had attacked the regulation alleging that there was no study, data or material to justify the size of the legal warning, and said the notification could be quashed because it was based on "whims, conjectures and conjectures".
However, the court noted that, according to the record, the food authority's decision to increase the size of the warning on the front of the label to 50 percent is based on "concerted deliberations" of relevant material, including studies and expert reports. , which showed that the use of areca nut in pan masala was extremely dangerous for consumers and therefore the warning needed to be strengthened.
It also rejected petitioner's claim that increasing the size of the warning statement took away its rights under the Trademark Law and the Copyright Law by restricting space on the package.
“Keeping in mind the objective of protecting and promoting public health sought to be achieved by Respondent No. 2, the restriction of space, if any, for displaying the mark is not a ground for repealing the impugned regulation keeping public health in mind. concern," the court said.
He noted that although there is a global recommendation to ban pan masala products, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has so far only taken a limited step of increasing the size of the warning and the petitioner's resistance to it. demonstrated. He only sought to serve his personal interests.
"This court is of the opinion that the impugned Regulation gives effect to the legislative intention of safeguarding the broader public interest, which is paramount and, as held by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries, the broader public interest of public health would outweigh the individual loss to manufacturer/licensee like the petitioners here," he observed.
The court held that the mandate met the "proportionality test" since the statutory health warning declaration was a crucial public health measure, and the petitioner cannot claim parity with the 3mm size for the statutory health warning in alcohol bottles.
A bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan dismissed a petition by a pan masala maker, challenging a notification issued by the FSSAI in October 2022, and said the order gives effect to the legislative intent to safeguard the broader public interest in health, which is paramount and outweighs the individual loss to a manufacturer.
"The present writ petition stands dismissed along with the pending application," the bench, also comprising Justice Manmeet PS Arora, said in the July 9 judgment.
The petitioners, Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, an authorized manufacturer and trader of pan masala brands Rajnigandha, Tansen and Mastaba, and one of its shareholders had also sought "sufficient time" to comply with the new packaging requirement if the petition was dismissed.
In its ruling, the court said that the petitioner company had already been given enough time to change the packaging of its product and comply with the regulations.
"In view of our findings on the defects of the challenged regulation, we are not willing to grant further time to the petitioner to allow the transition of the packaging of its product," he said.
The petitioners had attacked the regulation alleging that there was no study, data or material to justify the size of the legal warning, and said the notification could be quashed because it was based on "whims, conjectures and conjectures".
However, the court noted that, according to the record, the food authority's decision to increase the size of the warning on the front of the label to 50 percent is based on "concerted deliberations" of relevant material, including studies and expert reports. , which showed that the use of areca nut in pan masala was extremely dangerous for consumers and therefore the warning needed to be strengthened.
It also rejected petitioner's claim that increasing the size of the warning statement took away its rights under the Trademark Law and the Copyright Law by restricting space on the package.
“Keeping in mind the objective of protecting and promoting public health sought to be achieved by Respondent No. 2, the restriction of space, if any, for displaying the mark is not a ground for repealing the impugned regulation keeping public health in mind. concern," the court said.
He noted that although there is a global recommendation to ban pan masala products, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has so far only taken a limited step of increasing the size of the warning and the petitioner's resistance to it. demonstrated. He only sought to serve his personal interests.
"This court is of the opinion that the impugned Regulation gives effect to the legislative intention of safeguarding the broader public interest, which is paramount and, as held by the Supreme Court in Unicorn Industries, the broader public interest of public health would outweigh the individual loss to manufacturer/licensee like the petitioners here," he observed.
The court held that the mandate met the "proportionality test" since the statutory health warning declaration was a crucial public health measure, and the petitioner cannot claim parity with the 3mm size for the statutory health warning in alcohol bottles.
