HC seeks Delhi govt’s reply on plea against ban on chewable tobacco

The Delhi High Court on Friday sought response of the city government on a plea of manufacturers against ban on sale of chewable tobacco in the national capital from March 30.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher issued notice to Food Safety Commissioner of the Delhigovernment while restraining it from taking any action against sellers till the next date of hearing on May 20.

“Issue notice. The respondent should not take any coercive action against the sellers and the manufacturers till the next date of hearing,” the judge said.

The court’s notice was issued on a plea by a manufacturer S K Tobacco Industries, which has sought quashing of the notification by the Arvind Kejriwal government, banning sale, purchase and storage of all forms of chewable tobacco including “gutkha, khaini and zarda” in the national capital.

Delhi govt to respond on plea against ban on chewable tobacco

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Friday sought response of the city government on a plea of manufacturers against ban on sale of chewable tobacco in the national capital from March 30.

Justice Rajiv Shakdher issued notice to Food Safety Commissioner of the Delhi government while restraining it from taking any action against sellers till the next date of hearing on May 20.

"Issue notice. The respondent should not take any coercive action against the sellers and the manufacturers till the next date of hearing," the judge said.

The court's notice was issued on a plea by a manufacturer S K Tobacco Industries, which has sought quashing of the notification by the Arvind Kejriwal government, banning sale, purchase and storage of all forms of chewable tobacco including "gutkha, khaini and zarda" in the national capital. 

The plea, filed through advocate Prarthana Sampath, contended that the state government has no power to issue such a notification under the Food Safety and Standards Act and deserved to be quashed.

The company claimed that it was manufacturing pure tobacco product governed by Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, hence the power to regulate the sale or ban tobacco products rests with Centre and not the state.

The plea, also filed by advocate Kewal Singh Ahuja, further stated that the government has "erroneously" ignored that the petitioner company has "goods worth several lakhs stored in its godown for being dispatched for sale and further several lakhs already there with the retailers."

"Without giving an opportunity to at least clear the existing stock, the government's action is vitiated in law and gravely effected by revengeful attitude and thus, arbitrary and liable to be struck down," it said.

It contended that the government arbitrarily discriminated between smokeless and smoking forms of tobacco products, which is "unreasonable and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved."

"Prohibition of one kind of tobacco, smokeless tobacco and leaving out the other kind i.E. Smoking tobacco, does not envisage any public interest sought to be achieved by Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India," the plea said.

The high court is hearing a similar plea by another manufacturer Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd seeking quashing of the Delhi government's notification banning sale, purchase and storage of chewable tobacco in the city.

Delhi Health Minister Satyendra Jain had banned the sale, purchase and storage of chewable tobacco from March 30, saying enforcement teams of Delhi Police as well as Health Department have been asked to conduct surprise inspections across the city to ensure that the ban is implemented.

However, no such ban was enforced on cigarettes.

Health Department officials have said there was a Delhi government notification of September 2012, which was in pursuance of a series of directions from the Supreme Court to ban gutkha in the city.

But since the ban mentioned the term "gutkha", the tobacco retailers started selling the components of gutkha (betel nut and raw tobacco) in separate pouches. So, the purpose of banning the item was not served.

Therefore, the health department had last year started with a new proposal to ban all the raw chewable tobacco products in Delhi, a government official had said.

Artificially ripening of fruits akin to poisoning – now a criminal offence

The usage of calcium carbide to artificially ripen fruits is already banned, although without stringent action against defaulters.

The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) has now decided to strictly enforce Section 328 of the IPC that will be applicable against all those who are found using calcium carbide to ripen their fruits faster so they can be sold on the markets, reported Pune Mirror.

Traders are likely to indulge in this practice as the demand for the fruits continues to be on the rise. This decision was made taking into account the different weather conditions over the last few months. There will be no bail applicable to offenders.

The usage of calcium carbide to artificially ripen fruits is already banned, traders found guilty of it in the past have been likely to get bail and hence escape legal proceedings. According to Indian law, using calcium carbide to artificially ripen any fruit is banned under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards Regulations Act of 2011 (FSSR). So in a stringent move, such attempts have been denoted as an offence under Section 328 (causing hurt by means of poison etc., with intent to commit an offence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Fresh orders were issued on Monday to all state FDA units in order to bring this into force immediately. A diktat has also been issued by the state to implement this new addition in the concerned law at the earliest possible date or immediately.

When this law comes into force, the use of calcium carbide or similar chemicals to artificially ripen fruits will be viewed as a crime- an attempt to destroy the life of or impair the health of others by use of poison. When this IPC section is applied practically, offenders will be unable to get bail from the court after arrest and if their guilt is proven by process of prosecution in a special court, the accused may face rigorous imprisonment for a period of up to ten years.

Many traders have been found using this chemical to ripen fast moving fruits such as mangoes, bananas and papayas so that they are available in the market before the season for these fruits starts.

According to the report, a FDA official who chose to remain anonymous said that consuming such ripened fruits may cause headaches and dizziness and might even lead to cancer and heart diseases.