Doesn’t Disproportionately Impact Rights Of Manufacturers: Delhi HC Upholds Increase In Size Of Warning Statements On Pan Masala Labels
|The Delhi High Court has upheld the increase in size of warning statements from 3mm to 50% of front-of-pack of pan masala labels, saying that it does not disproportionately impact the rights of manufacturers or traders.
The Court was deciding a writ petition preferred by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, a licensed manufacturer and trader of Pan Masala brands, namely ‘Rajnigandha’, ‘Tansen’, and ‘Mastaba’.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora observed, “As submitted by Respondent No. 2 that the intention of Food Authority in introducing the impugned Regulation is that the statutory health warning statement serves as a crucial public health measure and it would be suitable that the warning statements are made highly visible, so that the same is noticeable to the consumers. Thus, the increase in size of warning statements from 3mm to 50% of front-of-pack of label is an effective alternative and does not disproportionately impact the rights of the Petitioners. Having these parameters in mind, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Regulation meets the test of proportionality.”
Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan and Vivek Kohli represented the petitioners while CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that Regulation 2(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Second Amendment Regulations, 2022 published in October 2022 be declared as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They also sought a declaration that impugned Regulation is ultra vires the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).
The petitioners were aggrieved by the impugned Regulation inasmuch as vide the same, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had enhanced the size of statutory warning on Pan Masala packages to the extent of 50% of front-of-pack of the label from the erstwhile warning size of 3mm. The petitioner no.1 was the licensed manufacturer and trader of Pan Masala brands and the petitioner no. 2 was a shareholder and one of the directors of the petitioner company.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “We have referred to Article 11 of WHO FCTC and the Guidelines issued for its implementation, to highlight the established practice followed for issuing large size warnings of carcinogenic products to ensure effective communication of the health risks to the consumers. In the case of tobacco products as noted above the Government has elected to prescribe a warning size of 85% on the package and has, therefore, recognised that large size warnings are necessary for communicating the health risks to the consumer. In contrast, the Food Authority has prescribed a warning size of 50% on the Pan Masala packet and the prescription of this size is not disproportionate and is in fact, appropriate considering the object sought to be achieved by the Regulator”
The senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the event the petition is dismissed, the petitioner be granted sufficient time to undertake compliance of packaging of its product with the impugned Regulation. In this regard, the Court said that such submission of the petitioners is without any merit as FSSAI submitted that on consideration of the request for extension received from stakeholders to enable them to exhaust their existing packaging material of its product and implement the changes in the packaging, the enforcement date was deferred on three occasions with the last extension expiring on April 30, 2024.
“In our view, the Petitioners herein therefore were granted sufficient time by Respondent No. 2 itself between 01st May, 2023 until 30th April, 2024 to change the packaging of its product and comply with the impugned Regulation w.e.f. 01st May, 2024. Moreover, the present writ petition was filed on 06th April, 2023 and there was no interim stay granted in favour of the Petitioners and, therefore, they have no justification for not complying with the impugned Regulation upon its coming into effect as on 01st May, 2024. In view of our findings on the vires of the impugned Regulation, we are not inclined to grant any further time to the Petitioner for permitting transition of the packaging of its product”, the Court concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Dharampal Satyapal Limited and Anr. v. Union of India Through Secretary (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5079-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates C.S. Vaidyanathan, Vivek Kohli, Advocates Nalin Talwar, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Bhavya Bhatia, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Aashish Kaushik, Jatin Nirwan, and Divyanshi Mohan.
Respondents: CGSC Anurag Ahluwalia, Govt. Pleader Tarveen Singh Nanda, Advocates Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Saakshi Garg, Ritwik Saha, and Rahul.