Commissioner (Food Safety), GNCTD v. Sugandhi Snuff King
The Ministry of Health of the Union of India and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) appealed the lower bench decision of the Delhi High Court that quashed notifications issued by the Commissioner (Food Safety), GNCTD. The notifications were issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (FSSA) and among other things, prohibited the manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of gutka and pan masala (with tobacco and/or nicotine), flavored/scented tobacco, whether sold together or separately. The notification was to address manufacturers flouting the prohibition of mixing food with tobacco by selling separate pouches of pan masala and flavored chewing tobacco together, so that they can be easily mixed and consumed as one.
The lower bench quashed the notifications, with a finding that tobacco could only be regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA), as tobacco was not food under the FSSA, and that the Commissioner (Food Safety) exceeded the power and authority conferred upon him by the FSSA. The appellate bench of the High Court set aside the lower bench judgment and found that the notifications were not regulating tobacco products but instead regulated food products containing tobacco and nicotine, as permitted by the FSSA. Further, while COTPA regulates the use, advertisement, packaging, and sales to minors of tobacco products, it does not regulate all matters concerning tobacco products. Therefore, prohibiting tobacco and/or nicotine in food does not conflict with COTPA. Thus, the notifications were upheld.
Commissioner (Food Safety), GNCTD and Union of India v. Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2023:DHC:2375-DB, High Court of Delhi (2023).
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"It becomes necessary to observe that the writ petitioners did not dispute that both cigarettes as well as smokeless tobacco have a direct and pernicious impact on public health. The submission essentially proceeded on the premise that there existed no rationale to create an artificial distinction between "smoking" and "smokeless" tobacco. We find ourselves unable to appreciate the aforesaid submission since once it was found and conceded that both categories of tobacco constituted substances which had a direct impact on public health, the impugned notifications clearly did not warrant being quashed."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Ministry of Health of the Union of India and the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) appealed the lower bench decision of the Delhi High Court that quashed notifications issued by the Commissioner (Food Safety), GNCTD. The notifications were issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (FSSA) and among other things, prohibited the manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of gutka and pan masala (with tobacco and/or nicotine), flavored/scented tobacco, whether sold together or separately. The notification was to address manufacturers flouting the prohibition of mixing food with tobacco by selling separate pouches of pan masala and flavored chewing tobacco together, so that they can be easily mixed and consumed as one.
The lower bench quashed the notifications, with a finding that tobacco could only be regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA), as tobacco was not food under the FSSA, and that the Commissioner (Food Safety) exceeded the power and authority conferred upon him by the FSSA. The appellate bench of the High Court set aside the lower bench judgment and found that the notifications were not regulating tobacco products but instead regulated food products containing tobacco and nicotine, as permitted by the FSSA. Further, while COTPA regulates the use, advertisement, packaging, and sales to minors of tobacco products, it does not regulate all matters concerning tobacco products. Therefore, prohibiting tobacco and/or nicotine in food does not conflict with COTPA. Thus, the notifications were upheld.