The Delhi High Court has upheld the law mandating that pan masala companies display statutory health warnings about the harmful effects of pan masala on 50% of the front side of their packaging [Dharampal Satyapal Limited and Anr v Union of India].
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stated that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) introduced this regulation to protect public health and to raise consumer awareness about the risks associated with chewing pan masala.
The Court noted that the pan masala companies’ challenge to the regulation was motivated by their self-interest in preserving sales, which might decline if they comply with the regulation.
“The intention of the Food Authority in introducing the impugned Regulation is that the statutory health warning statement serves as a crucial public health measure and should be highly visible to be noticeable to consumers. Thus, increasing the size of the warning statements from 3mm to 50% of the front-of-pack label is an effective alternative and does not disproportionately impact the rights of the Petitioners. Considering these parameters, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Regulation meets the test of proportionality,” the High Court held.
Therefore, the Court rejected the plea filed by Dharampal Satyapal Limited, which manufactures products like Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba.
Dharampal Satyapal approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Regulation 2(i) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Second Amendment Regulations, 2022 is unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality, freedom of expression, and freedom to practice any trade or profession.
They also sought a declaration that the Regulation is ultra vires the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
It was stated that, according to the earlier regulation, the size of the statutory warning was to be 3 millimeters (mm). However, the new law requires it to cover 50% of the front of the package.
The company argued that the regulation was introduced without following the statutory process and without consulting the scientific panel or scientific committee.
However, the Division Bench ruled that the regulation brought in by the government effectively serves the legislative intent of safeguarding the larger public interest, which is paramount.
The Court further stated that a pan masala company cannot claim parity with alcohol companies, which are mandated to have a 3mm statutory health warning on alcohol bottles.
Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Vivek Kohli, along with advocates Nalin Talwar, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Bhavya Bhatia, Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Shashi Pathak, Aashish Kaushik, Jatin Nirwan, and Divyanshi Mohan, appeared for the petitioner company.
The Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Anurag Ahluwalia and advocate Tarveen Singh Nanda.
Advocates Aditya Singla, Supriya Juneja, Saakshi Garg, Ritwik Saha, and Rahul appeared for the FSSAI.
