CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has sought response from the government to a challenge by a Cuttack-based tobacco manufacturer against the state’s ban on food products containing tobacco or nicotine.
A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash issued the notice to the state government on Monday while hearing a writ appeal against an August 21 judgement of a single-judge bench, which had upheld the government’s notification prohibiting such products. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 12.
The January 21 notification prohibits the manufacture, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution and sale of food products containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredients.
It also covers flavoured, scented or additive-mixed chewable products, including those marketed as gutkha, pan masala and similar products.
Several companies manufacturing and selling tobacco had challenged the notification before the high court. A single judge, however, refused to interfere, holding that the notification was consistent with the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) and the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011.
The company has now filed the writ appeal questioning the very basis for treating chewing tobacco products as “food” under the FSSA. The appeal contends that the definition of “food” under section 3(1)(j) of the FSSA is exhaustive and cannot be enlarged through administrative interpretation.
It argues that chewing tobacco is neither ordinarily regarded as food nor specifically covered by the statutory definition.
While dismissing the earlier petitions, the single judge had taken note of the public health objective behind the state notification. The court observed that the restriction had a “direct nexus” with protection of public health from tobacco and nicotine used in products meant for human consumption.
The judge also referred to material regarding the harmful effects and prevalence of smokeless tobacco, and held that, when confined to the statutory framework, the notification did not impose restrictions beyond those contemplated under law.