2011 AIR SCW 6281 ::2012 (2) AIR Bom R 130 ::(2011) 2 MadLW(Cri) 477 ::2012 FAJ 1 ::(2011) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 381 ::2011 (8) SCC 274 ::(2011) 3 RecCriR 784 ::(2011) 7 Scale 307 ::(2011) 6 All WC 6010 ::(2011) 49 OCR 804 ::2011 (3) KLT SN 44 (SC) ::(2011) 74 AllCriC 936 ::(2011) 105 AllIndCas 204 (SC) ::(2011) 3 EFR 21

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. V. Raveendran, B. Sudershan Reddy , JJ

(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (37 of 1954) , S.23(1), S.7(4)— Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (1955) , R.44I— (as inserted by Amendment Rules, 2005) - Validity of R.44-I - Courts are not equipped to decide medical issue relating to public health - Placing ban on sale of non-iodized salt for human consumption under R. 44-I - Is implementation of policy decision regarding public health - It is not arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 21 of Constitution - No material to show that any monopoly sought to be created in favour of few companies or MNCs - No violation of Art.19(1)(g). Constitution of India , Art.14, Art.21, Art.19(1)(g)— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45— The Courts are not equipped to decide the medical issue relating to public health, as to whether compulsory iodization should be replaced by voluntary iodization as has been done in some developed countries, so that both common salt and iodized salt are available in the market and only those 10% who are deficient in iodine can opt for iodized salt. The Government of India has taken note of scientific and medical inputs, research results and survey data to conclude that compulsory iodization is the most effective and accepted method for elimination of iodine deficiency disorders and that consumption of iodized salt by persons not suffering from @page-SCW....