A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the petitioner has prayed that the notification prohibiting sale of general salt should be quashed and a direction should be issued that the public should not be forced to consume iodized salt. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a doctor by profession and has brought this cause before this Court that poor people of India who are living mostly below the poverty line cannot afford to have the iodized salt which is expensive and therefore the action taken by the State in prohibiting the sale of general salt without iodine which is cheaper is bad. It is contended that the public at large is forced to consume iodized salt, cost of which is affordable by the people who are above poverty line. It is also pointed out that the iodized salt is ten times more costly than the ordinary salt in the market. It is alleged that it is nothing but a device to benefit the multi national companies to control this industry also. ( 3 ) THE Government of India has issued notification through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 27th Nov. , 1997 published in the Gazette of India (Extra Ordinary) Part II dated 9th July 1998. By this notification, provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder have been amended. ( 3 ) THE Government of India has issued notification through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 27th Nov. , 1997 published in the Gazette of India (Extra Ordinary) Part II dated 9th July 1998. By this notification, provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder have been amended. The notification reads as under: MINISTRY OF HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health)NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 27th November 1997 G. S. R. 670 (E) : Whereas certain draft rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 were published as required by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (37 of 1954) with the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health), No. G. S. R. 6 (E) dated the 6th January 1997 in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i), dated the 6th January, 1997 inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby before the expiry of ninety days from the date on which the copies of the Official Gazette containing the said notification were made available to the public; And whereas the copies of the said Gazette were made available to the public on 15th January, 1997;and whereas the objections and suggestions received from the public on the said draft rules have been considered by Central Government; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) read with sub section (1a) of Section 23 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards, hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, namely:1. (i) These rules may be called the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Xth Amendment) Rules, 1997. (ii) They shall come into force after six months from the date of their publication in the official Gazette. 2 In the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (i) In Rule 42,- (a) for sub Rule (V), the following sub rule shall be substituted, namely:' (v) Every container or package of table iodised salt or iron fortified common salt containing permitted anticaking agents shall bear the following label, namely:-TABLE IODISED SALT/table IRON FORTIFIED COMMON SALT CONTAINS PERMITTED ANTICAKING AGENT''strike out whichever is not applicable. ' (b) In sub-rule (zzz), after Clause (10), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-' (11) Every container or package of common salt shall bear the following label, namely:-COMMON SALT FOR IODISATION/iron FORTIFICATION/animal USE/preservation/ MEDICINE/industrial USE. Strike out which is not applicable, (ii) After Rule44 F, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-'44g. Restriction on sale of common salt - No person shall sell oroffer or expose for sale or have in his premises for the purpose of sale, common salt for direct human consumption unless the same is iodised. Provided that common salt may be sold or exposed for sale or stored for sale for iodisation, iron fortification, animal use, preservation, manufacturing medicines, and industrial use under proper label declarations as specified under Clause (11) of sub rule (zzz) of Rule 42. ' (iii) in Rule 49 of the said rule in sub Rule (10), for the words 'table salt or iron fortified common salt', the words 'table iodised salt or table iron fortified common salt' shall be substituted. "the contention of the petitioner is that by this notification, it has become necessary for the dealers to sell the salt which is iodised. The effect of this would be that the common salt which is sold in the market at cheaper rate would not be available to poor persons. Likewise, the consumption of common salt in all situations is not harmful to the people. It is pointed out that some persons who suffer from thyroid diseases, the consumption of iodised salt is health hazard. The petitioner has therefore challenged this notification on two grounds, firstly that the consumption of salt has been made expensive to those persons who are living below the poverty line, and secondly, it is not in every case that the consumption of iodised salt will remove number of ills of the persons who might be suffering due to lack of iodine. It is pointed out that in number of cases like persons suffering from thyroid, consumption of this iodised salt can prove fatal. ( 4 ) A return has been filed by the Government of India. It is submitted in the return that after studies at national level, it is felt that consumption of iodine is also necessary for health. The petitioner and respondents have in this connection invited our attention to various studies made in regard to iodine at various stages. ( 4 ) A return has been filed by the Government of India. It is submitted in the return that after studies at national level, it is felt that consumption of iodine is also necessary for health. The petitioner and respondents have in this connection invited our attention to various studies made in regard to iodine at various stages. It was brought to our notice as to what is iodine as under: WHAT IS IODINE? Iodine is needed to help form thyroid hormone, which controls the body's rate of metabolism. A person who is producing too little thyroid hormone will suffer from hypo-thyroidism, signified by a goitre - a swelling in the neck. "the petitioner has also brought to our notice the study made by Academy of Nutrition Improvement, Nagpur. It is pointed out therein that all the foods like cereals and millets, whole grain, dals, leafy vegetables, milk and milk products, fruits etc. contain certain amount of iodine. In that study, reasonable contents of iodine of different foodstuffs have also been pointed out. The petitioner has also invited our attention to an article published in Nagpur Times in which it is said that iodised salt will lead to grave chronic diseases. In the study made by the Academy of Nutrition Improvement, it is observed that:"we have warned even in writing to the Union Department of Health, New Delhi and Maharashtra State Health Department, Bombay that consumption of iodised salt on compulsory basis is harmful for over 95% population as our diet is not deficient in iodine. Therefore, programme needs to be reviewed again. "our attention was also drawn to a communication of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 7th June 1991 where standards for iodised salt have been laid down as under:manufacturing level : Not less than 30 PPN of iodine. Retail/consumer level : Not less than15 PPN of iodine. The Under Secretary, Government of India in his communication to the Bakul Janta Society, Tagore Marg, Rajkot has informed that there are no adverse effects reported of due to consumption of iodised salt when iodated with potassium iodate in the prescribed levels. Retail/consumer level : Not less than15 PPN of iodine. The Under Secretary, Government of India in his communication to the Bakul Janta Society, Tagore Marg, Rajkot has informed that there are no adverse effects reported of due to consumption of iodised salt when iodated with potassium iodate in the prescribed levels. The result of longitudinal studies conducted in Kangra Valley of Himachal Pradesh have proved the efficacy of iodised salt in bringing down prevalence of goitre and other Iodine Deficiency Prophylaxis with iodised salt is low cost and effective technology for prevention and control of IDD and which will result in improved quality of life. ( 5 ) THE petitioner also drew our attention to a communication of National Institute of Nutrition. Indian Council of Medical Research, Hyderabad dated 19th March 1991. In this communication, it is emphasised that consumption of iodised salt by persons not suffering from goitre or iodine deficiency disorders is harmful provided they are not getting excess iodine from any other sources. Our attention was also drawn on a book on Clinical Pharmacology by D. R. Laurence, M. D. F. R. C. P. Professors Pharmacology, London University 1966 Edition page 523, 524, in which it is said that the continuous consumption of iodine and iodised salt leads to mental depression, nervousness, insomnia, sexual impotence and myxoedema. Our attention was also drawn to Encyclopaedia of Chemicals and Technology, Kirk and Othmer. III Ed. (1982) Vol. 18 Page 939 where it is observed that normal iodising compound is potassium iodide (KI) because potassium iodate has been reported as a poison. ( 6 ) THE Govt. of India has also filed a detailed study along with the return. A national survey was undertaken as "national Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Programme Survey Report. " In this report, it is pointed out that the study was undertaken and out of 275 districts surveyed in 25 States and 4 Union Territories, 235 are endemic to Iodine Deficiency Disorders where the prevalence is more than 10 per cent. It is pointed out that iodine is most effective and cheapest way to control this problem and average consumption of salt per day per person is about 10 gm. and the Government has prescribed minimum level of fortification which is suited for our country and takes care of daily requirement of nutritional iodine. It is pointed out that iodine is most effective and cheapest way to control this problem and average consumption of salt per day per person is about 10 gm. and the Government has prescribed minimum level of fortification which is suited for our country and takes care of daily requirement of nutritional iodine. In the chart, it is pointed out that there is varying endemic percentage of IDD and in some places it is more and at some places, it is less. For example, prevalence rate of IDD in the surveyed districts of all States and Union Territories is being reproduced below: @@prevalence OF IDD IN DIFFERENT states/uts. OF INDIA Name of State / UT Total distt. No. of distt. Surveyed Endemic Andhra Pradesh 2376 Arunachal P. 101010asam181818bihar382221goa222gujarat19168hariyana1698jammu and Kash. 151414karnataka20176kerala141411madhya Pradesh451616maharashtra312921mizoram444meghalaya52-Nagaland777orissa3022punjab1233rajasthan2733sikkim444tamil Nadu211212tripura333uttar Pradesh673429west Bengal1855a and NIsland2--Chandigarh111dadra and Nagar111havelidelhi111lakshadweep1--Pondicherry4--Daman and Diu111total480275235particulars of survey of Madhya Pradesh showing survey year and the prevalance rate in per cent are given below:madhya Pradeshtotal number of districts-451. Shahdol197655. 62 Sidhi197937. 83 Raigarh198034. 824 Sarguja198141. 815 Bilaspur198532. 506 Khandwa198535. 007 Khargone198525. 008 Betul198535. 009 Hoshangabad198535. 0010 Chhindwara198535. 0011 Mandla198634. 412 Jabalpur198916. 113 Chhatarpur198925. 114 Damoh198919. 315 Sagar198919. 216 Tikamgarh198918. 7@@ in Madhya Pradesh, there are 16 districts which suffer from IDD. On the basis of survey report conducted at the national level, a decision was taken to amend the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act thereby making the consumption of iodised salt as a must. The detailed report of the National IDD Control Programme survey has been placed on record by the Government of India. It is also pointed out by the Govt. of India in its return that the Government has not imposed complete ban on sale of common salt in the country but has only restricted sale of common salt for direct human consumption. There is still an area left where the common salt is permitted to be sold for purpose other than direct human consumption. It is also pointed out that this has been done by the Government of India in the interest of public health only. ( 7 ) FROM the return filed by the Govt. of India and the datas placed on record show that there is study conducted at various levels and the studies undertaken by the Government of India at national level demonstrate that various districts suffer from IDD in varying quantity. ( 7 ) FROM the return filed by the Govt. of India and the datas placed on record show that there is study conducted at various levels and the studies undertaken by the Government of India at national level demonstrate that various districts suffer from IDD in varying quantity. Therefore, for the preservation of health of the people, it is thought proper that if the salt which is commonly used is iodised can make the deficiency good and maintain the health of the people. After all it is the duty and responsibility of the State under Art. 47 of the Constitution of India to provide a proper nutrition with a view to maintain the public health and also for betterment of the people. On the basis of studies undertaken at the national level, the Government of India thought it proper to sell the iodised salt with a view to improve the health of the people. In this view of the matter, it can not be said that the aforesaid notification issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is bad requiring any interference by this Court. ( 8 ) THE petitioner has tried to emphasise that because of consumption of iodine by people who are already suffering from thyroid, it might prove injurious to their health. In the notification a provision has been made that common salt can be sold only for medicinal purposes i. e. in case it is prescribed by doctor. But a patient suffering from thyroid and he is prevented from consuming iodine, in that case, he can purchase common salt which is available for medicinal purpose. The common salt has been permitted to be sold for preservation of health also. It is not proper to say that the common salt has gone beyond the reach of people who need it for medicinal purposes. ( 9 ) COMING to the question of the price of the iodised salt which is said to be more expensive than the common salt and people cannot afford for the same as against the common salt, we are of the view that this is an economic problem for all but in order to do greater good for all citizens, this price will have to be paid. Simply because the common salt will be cheaper than the iodised salt is no justification for the Courts to declare the aforesaid provision invalid particularly when it has been made for the benefit of public at large. ( 10 ) AS a result of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed but without any cost. Petition dismissed. .