Don't interfere with sale, storage, transportation of raw chewable tobacco: Madras High Court
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, however, made it clear officials could initiate appropriate action if the unmanufactured chewable tobacco was sold by mixing it with gutkha or pan masala for which there was a total ban in Tamil Nadu ever since the Supreme Court passed an interim order in 2013.
Justice Venkatesh made the position clear while disposing of a writ petition filed by Rathinam Enterprises of Chennai. The petitioner firm had complained of the food safety officials having treated the cut raw chewable tobacco leaves in its possession as unsafe for human consumption and injurious to health.
Representing it, senior counsel V. Raghavachari contended raw chewable tobacco would not fall under the definition of the term 'food' as it had been defined under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 and therefore, food safety officials could have no authority to seize them.
Yet, the officials had seized the unmanufactured tobacco from the petitioner firm and subjected it to chemical analysis to find 0.47% of nicotine content. Stating nicotine was a natural ingredient of raw chewable tobacco, the counsel said, that by itself could not become a reason for the officers to act against the petitioner firm.
He said, the Supreme Court had directed all States and Union Territories only to ban gutkha and pan masala containing tobacco/nicotine and it was only on the basis of that direction, the Tamil Nadu government had been issuing notifications year after year extending the ban on gutkha and pan masala.
However, after two Division Benches of the High Court held that tobacco, with or without additives, would fall within the definition of the term 'food,' the government began issuing notifications omitting the words 'gutkha' and 'pan masala' and began banning all substances 'containing tobacco and/or nicotine as ingredients.'
It was this change in the notification that had led the food safety officers to clamp down on raw chewable tobacco too, he said.
Stating cultivation of tobacco was only regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 2003 and not banned, Mr. Raghavachari wondered how the officials could seize only chewable tobacco but not smoking tobacco.
After recording his submissions, Justice Venkatesh, said, he was bound by the verdicts passed by the Division Benches of the High Court and therefore, could not take a contrary decision. Now that the matters had been taken to the Supreme Court, judicial discipline would require him to await the final judgement of the top court, he added.
The judge also took note the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had issued a regulatory on January 9, 2023 informing the State governments of having constituted an expert committee to analyse the issue of chewable tobacco and instructed the food safety officials to withhold further action on the issue.
Therefore, as an interim arrangement, the food safety officials shall not interfere with the storage, sale or transportation of unmanufactured tobacco by the writ petitioner until the larger issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court and till the expert committee file its final report, the judge ordered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
Telangana HC Rejects Woman's Divorce, Rs 90 Lakh Alimony Plea; Says No Proof Of Husband's Impotency
The husband countered that the marriage was a love marriage, and that the couple had a sexual relationship both in India and the US. A woman's bid to end her marriage and secure Rs 90 lakh in permanent alimony collapsed in the Telangana High Court recently, with the court ruling that her allegations of her husband's impotency were not backed by evidence. The division bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and BR Madhusudhan Rao upheld a 2024 order of the Ranga Reddy family court, which had already refused to dissolve the marriage. The appeal had been filed by the wife, who insisted that her husband concealed his medical condition, failed to consummate the marriage, and subjected her to years of emotional distress. The couple married in December 2013 in Hyderabad. According to the wife, her husband was unable to have sexual relations from the very first night, a problem that persisted during their honeymoons in Kerala and Kashmir. When she joined him in the United States in 2015, she claimed doctors confirmed that his erectile dysfunction was untreatable. She told the court that his condition, coupled with recurring medical issues, left her traumatised and robbed her of the chance to start a family. The husband countered that the marriage was a love marriage, and that the couple had a sexual relationship both in India and the US. He admitted to experiencing difficulties but maintained that medication restored normalcy. He also pointed to financial support he extended to her, including over Rs 28 lakh transferred to her bank account, arguing that her case was driven by money rather than genuine grievance. The High Court examined a series of medical documents, including a potency test conducted at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad in 2021, which concluded there was 'nothing to suggest" that he was incapable of sexual intercourse. The bench noted that a diagnostic report before the marriage also showed normal sperm count. The judges were not persuaded by the wife's attempt to introduce fresh documents relating to financial cases in the United States, saying they were irrelevant to the matrimonial dispute and had been filed without due diligence. Another factor that weighed heavily against her was timing. The wife filed her petition for divorce in 2018, five years after the marriage. Court observed that if the marriage had truly never been consummated, she would have raised the issue much earlier with her family or authorities. There is no evidence to support the appellant's contention that the respondent was incapable of performing marital obligations, the bench concluded, rejecting her plea for both divorce and alimony. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
The Print
5 hours ago
- The Print
Doctors write to CJI urging stay on SC stray dog order, warn against ‘zoonosis' in overcrowded shelters
'These overcrowded shelters become hotspots of zoonosis, and confining a large number of dogs in closed spaces weakens their immunity,' Dr Maria said in her post of 18 August. 'The diseases from these dogs could affect humans, families, and especially the workers in these shelters.' One such doctor, Arti Maria, Dean of RML Hospital in Delhi, shared her concerns on Instagram. New Delhi: Doctors and veterinarians across India have written to the Chief Justice of India, warning against the outbreak of zoonotic diseases in shelters for stray dogs following the 11 August Supreme Court order for capturing dogs on the streets of Delhi-NCR and confining them to shelters. More than 10 other letters and testimonials from doctors, accessed by ThePrint, have similarly laid out the health challenges of stray dog shelters, both for animals and humans. According to a letter dated 18 August by Dr Rajeena Shahin, a physician, the removal of dogs from Delhi's streets could result in both the outbreak of zoonotic diseases in shelters, as well as an 'exacerbated rabies risk'. The letter cautioned against the threat of leptospirosis and brucellosis in the shelters, two bacteria-borne diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans and have previously caused outbreaks in Kerala and even in the US, notably in South Carolina in 2023. 'The very act of removing dogs from their home territories is contrary to scientific best practices in rabies control,' reads her letter. 'It could lead to the vacuum effect … empty spaces are quickly recolonised by unvaccinated and unsterilised dogs from nearby areas.' Other letters, such as those by Dr Neelima Seth, an eye surgeon, Ashima Nath, a consulting homeopath, and Dr Shivendra Pratap Singh, a consulting veterinarian, also point out the same concerns of zoonotic diseases and the vacuum effect when dogs are removed from their original territories. All the letters call for the Supreme Court to stay its 11 August directive and instead undertake other measures, such as vaccination, proper waste disposal and enforcement of Animal Birth Control Rules of 2023, to address the stray dog problem. Since the SC order on strays, a number of NGOs, citizen groups, and other sections of society have broken out in protests, terming it cruel. On 14 August, the ROH-Indies Research Project at the University of Edinburgh also released a statement citing research that contradicts the desired public health outcomes of the SC order. 'Street dog elimination, whether through removal or culling, may seem like a quick fix, but evidence shows that it is counterproductive from a public health perspective,' reads the statement. Pointing to India's record in reducing human rabies cases from 247 in 2005 to 24 in 2022, the statement urged measures like animal vaccination drives and access to rabies PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) for bite victims. It too said that removing street dogs altogether might not reduce but rather increase the risk of rabies. According to the statement, an ROH Indies study showed that 82% of human-street dog interactions observed in India were 'uneventful', and that street dogs have evolved to 'co-habit safely and harmlessly with humans'. In case all street dogs were removed, it said, their ecological niche would be taken up by other animals carrying similar diseases, such as seagulls, foxes, coyotes, and skunks, which are 'seen as even more threatening to humans'. 'In the US, the rabies virus has adapted to other animal reservoir hosts with bats, raccoons, skunks, and foxes now accounting for more than 90% of reported cases of animal rabies,' reads the statement. (Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui) Also Read: Stray dogs have the right to live. SC order can trigger a wave of animal cruelty
New Indian Express
9 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Odisha HC quashes BP-based disqualification in Forest Service posting
CUTTACK: In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has set aside the disqualification of 11 candidates from the recruitment process for the posts of assistant conservator of forests and forest ranger under the Odisha Forest Service cadre. Their disqualification was based solely on blood pressure readings during the physical test. In the order on Monday, which came in response to three separate writ petitions filed by the affected candidates, Justice AK Mohapatra observed that there is no provision under the 2013 Rules or in the recruitment notification that allows for disqualification based solely on blood pressure measurement. The judge held that the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) and Forest department had committed a 'gross error of law' and acted 'illegally and arbitrarily'. The physical and endurance test was conducted by the Forest department under the supervision of the OPSC. Quashing the disqualification, Justice Mohapatra directed OPSC and Forest department to allow the petitioners to participate in the physical endurance (walking) test, provided they submit a certificate from a registered medical practitioner confirming normal blood pressure. The test must be conducted within four weeks from the communication of the court's order.
