Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
if (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 8855,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'metaKeywords' => 'food,Health',
'metaDesc' => '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 8855
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan'
$metaKeywords = 'food,Health'
$metaDesc = '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br /><br />“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 8855,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'metaKeywords' => 'food,Health',
'metaDesc' => '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 8855
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan'
$metaKeywords = 'food,Health'
$metaDesc = '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br /><br />“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f6c312e189e-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 8855,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'metaKeywords' => 'food,Health',
'metaDesc' => '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 8855
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan'
$metaKeywords = 'food,Health'
$metaDesc = '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: &ldquo;If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />&ldquo;We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.&rdquo;<br /><br />&ldquo;We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.&rdquo;<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />&ldquo;It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people &ldquo;who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br /><br />“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$cookies = []
$values = [
(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br />
<br />
“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 8855,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'metaKeywords' => 'food,Health',
'metaDesc' => '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...',
'disp' => '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br /><br />“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 8855,
'title' => 'Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<div align="justify">
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br />
<br />
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br />
<br />
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br />
<br />
The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br />
<br />
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br />
<br />
“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br />
<br />
“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br />
<br />
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br />
<br />
“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br />
<br />
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br />
<br />
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br />
<br />
The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 13 July, 2011, http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2222728.ece',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 8957,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 8855
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan'
$metaKeywords = 'food,Health'
$metaDesc = '
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.<br /><br />A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.<br /><br />Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.<br /><br />The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”<br /><br />The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.<br /><br />“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”<br /><br />“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”<br /><br />But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.<br /><br />“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”<br /><br />The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.<br /><br />The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.<br /><br />The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
latest-news-updates/ban-on-non-iodised-salt-unconstitutional-supreme-court-by-j-venkatesan-8957.html"/>
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan | Im4change.org
Ban on non-iodised salt unconstitutional: Supreme Court by J Venkatesan
The Supreme Court, while holding that the prohibition imposed by the Centre on non-iodised salt for human consumption is unconstitutional, has however, said the ban will continue for six months.
A Bench of Justices R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy (since retired) directed the Centre to review its policy of compulsory universal salt iodisation programme within six months. The programme should be reviewed with reference to the latest inputs and research data and if, after such an exercise, the government was of the view that it required to be continued, appropriate legislation or other measures in accordance with law should be introduced.
Writing the judgment, Justice Raveendran held that Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, was unconstitutional. For, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was intended for banning use of adulterated and misbranded products and hence the rule could not be invoked to ban sale of non-iodised salt.
The Bench said: “If the object sought to be achieved is to persuade people to use iodised salt or to ensure that people use iodised salt, the recourse cannot be by making a rule banning sale of common salt for human consumption under the PFA Act.”
The PFA Act could not be used to make a rule to achieve an object wholly unrelated to the Act.
“We are of the view that the Rule 44-I [under which the ban was imposed] is wholly outside the scope of the Act.”
“We are constrained to hold that Rule 44-I is ultra vires and therefore not valid. The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health.”
But, the Bench said, to do complete justice and in the interest of public health, it was exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the ban contained in Rule 44-I would continue for six months.
“It is needless to say that if it [the government] fails to take any action within the expiry of six months, Rule 44-I shall cease to operate.”
The Bench, allowing a writ petition filed by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement and others challenging the ban, said if the government was keen on banning non-iodised salt it should to come out with different legislation. However, there was no material to prove the petitioners' claim that compulsory iodisation resulted in thyroid and other life-threatening complications.
The government had made mandatory consumption of only iodised salt on the ground that iodine deficiency caused a wide spectrum of disorders, ranging from goitre to cretinism, apart from stillbirth, abortion, dwarfism, squint eye, mental retardation, lower IQ and neuromotor defects.
The petitioners said that when people “who do not suffer from iodine deficiency are forced to take iodised salt regularly, there is the risk of many of them developing complications induced by higher intake of iodine and increase in iodine
