• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Labelling of Drugs & Cosmetics: Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association v. Ozair Husain & Ors. (2013)

Latest News

Back

Labelling of Drugs & Cosmetics: Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association v. Ozair Husain & Ors. (2013)

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  19 Nov 2020     Views:1811

Citation: (2013) 3 SCC 641

Date of judgement: 07/03/2013

 

Facts:

Ozair Husain, a public-spirited individual, filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court claiming the fundamental right of a consumer to know about the source of ingredients in drugs and cosmetics. The preliminary issue being, the lack of labelling on drugs and cosmetics as to the origins of their ingredients.  A Division Bench of the High Court by an order dated 13/11/2002 upheld the contentions and remarked non-labelling to be violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 21 and 25. An interim order was passed directing the packaging of cosmetics to be done in a way similar to food items. Moreover, all drugs, except for life-saving ones, were asked to be marked with a red label to connote the presence of non-vegetarian content and green for vegetarian. It also directed the Director-General of Health Services to issue a list of drugs that could be deemed life-saving to avail the exception.

Aggrieved by the order, Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association (appellants) filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the inherent difficulties posed by the impugned judgement dated 13/11/2002.

 

Issues:

  • Whether a consumer has the right to know whether a particular drug or cosmetic is vegetarian or non-vegetarian
  • Whether labelling the source of ingredients for drugs and cosmetics was practical
  • Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to direct the Centre to amend Rules. 

 

Arguments advanced:

The appellants placed on record that the direction was impracticable and wouldn’t serve any purpose. The distinction between “vegetarian” & “non-vegetarian” was usually related to the notion of food and ingestion. They also raised the issue that drugs and cosmetics were made up of a plethora of ingredients and it would be difficult to trace the origins and specific chemical or medicinal component of each.

The requirement would impose severe technological and research-based costs on local manufacturers. Unlike food products, there was a large influx of drugs and cosmetics from international markets and this would put Indian manufacturers at an economic disadvantage.

The respondent’s (Ozair Husain) contention was based on the idea that about 60% of Indians were vegetarian, 50% were illiterate and over 90% couldn’t read English.  He claimed that it was the fundamental right of each consumer to know whether a product had vegetarian or non-vegetarian produce as it would influence his purchase choice. It was added that the purpose of the petition was to safeguard the interests of those who didn’t know and effectively communicate to them by means of universal symbols. Through this communication, one could fulfill and stand true to one’s beliefs on vegetarianism.  Article 25 was also raised as a way of enforcing one’s particular belief or opinion about a category of product.

 

Judgement:

  • Classification of life-saving drugs:

The Court recognized that the impugned judgement was formed by placing drugs at par with the food products. The first aspect under consideration was the exception of life-saving drugs. The appellants furthered that there was no definition in pharmacology for a “life-saving drug” and the same would be subjective to a particular stage of a disease or infirmity. The Court thus rejected the impugned order’s view as the classification sought was generic, and the fact that each drug was life-saving in its own way.  In addition to these, the Court upheld the fact that the power to determine and consequently direct such labelling would be vested with the Drug Technical Advisory Board constituted under Section 5 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act.

  • Labelling under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act:

It is pertinent to note that the entire course of events unfolded before the enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2011 and thus relied on the provisions, and orders under the Act of 1954.

The learned judges referred to the concept of labelling and packaging brought about by the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2001 that effectuated symbolism and colour codes to categorize food products. The same was enshrined under Rule 32(b) that established guidelines to be followed while packaging food. This made it mandatory for manufacturers to declare the contents of food. However, the concept of labelling was still within the ambit of the Act of 1954 whereas the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 imposed no such prerequisite.

  • Labelling under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:

Section 5 of the Act dealt with the constituting of a Drug Technical Advisory Board for advising both the Centre & State on technicalities based on the provisions of the Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court then referred to Part XV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which encompassed the manner for the labelling and packing of cosmetics and medicines. However, the Rules did not prescribe any requirement as to the use of any labels for vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Neither the Rules nor the Act imposed any responsibility on manufacturers to make any such specification.

  • Right to receive information and the practicality of labelling:

The provisions of the Act of 1945 made it evident that any decision or amendment could be made by the Central Government only in consultation with the Drug Technical Advisory Board. Reference was made to the outcome of a meeting of the Board concerning labelling based on the ingredients included. The Meeting dated 8/07/1999 concluded with an answer in the negative as such as a proposal was neither practical nor relevant.

While delving into the contention of the right to information, the court upheld the well-established principle that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) included the right to receive information. Decisions such as those in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain & Ors., (1975) 4 SCC 428 and P.V. Narasimha Rao vs. State, (1998) 4 SCC 626, upheld that state had the duty to ensure its citizens’ received information. Nonetheless, this right could be exercised and claimed only to a practical extent while also ensuring that it wouldn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

Relying on the appellant’s submissions and the previous views of the Board on labelling, the learned judges upheld the contention that classification would not be plausible. It was also added that the option of deciding whether or not to consume a drug merely based on its vegetarian quotient could not be left with a patient whose life depended on it.

Individuals’ food habits were acknowledged to be extremely subjective with each having a belief and liking for his own. Instances such as the practice in Jainism whereby vegetarians do not consume food grown below the ground and other situations wherein vegetarians consume only eggs. There would be a subdivision even amongst non-vegetarians who would not consume beef/pork due to religious beliefs. Thus, it was substantiated that a requirement for labelling would serve no effective purpose due to the plethora of beliefs and sub-divisions within a category and the additional costs it would impose.

  • High Court’s power to issue a mandamus to the Central Government:

Judgements such as those in A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 271 and Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 187, have consistently upheld the view that a court cannot issue a mandamus directing enactments. Such a power would vest with the Legislature alone or the Executive through delegated legislation and courts do not have the power to compel. The learned judges then referred to the view in Bal Ram Bali & Anr. v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 805, that reiterated policy power to vest with the appropriate government alone and the incapability of Courts to direct other organs to bring about a particular law.

The Division bench of the Supreme Court hence permitted the appeal as it penned that the High Court of Delhi had no power to award an interim arrangement and set aside the impugned order.

 

Conclusion:

The right to receive information is indubitably a facet of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). Despite having a noble intent for labelling drugs and cosmetics, the same could not be upheld due to the various difficulties inherent in the process and its effectivity. The flaw with classification boils down to the extremely subjective food habits of individuals which would essentially make all classification worthless if not clearly communicated. Furthermore, courts did not have the power to direct either the Executive or Legislature to enact statutes or bring about amendments as it would result in the overstepping of jurisdiction. The verdict established that the right to receive information could be availed only if it was practical and didn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

 


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  19 Nov 2020     Views:1811

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:6202
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5614
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5595
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5393
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5415
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:5064
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5429
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5421
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5544
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5727
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5437
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5402
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5352
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5478
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5434
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5761
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5586
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6432
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5548
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5892
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5793
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5979
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5831
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5942
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5734
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:9135
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7667
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7705
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7495
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8477
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7804
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6336
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:7123
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6381
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6389
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6642
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6332
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6315
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6362
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6334
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6686
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:6179
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:6212
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6658
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6860
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6434
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6871
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8869
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6866
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6530
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:12197
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:6245
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:7108
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6677
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6388
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6617
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:6252
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6706
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6371
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6816
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:7040
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:7272
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:11155
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6466
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6336
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7473
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:6183
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:6193
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7779
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6723
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:6269
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6313
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:6262
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8363
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6548
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:6182
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:6036
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:7126
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:6060
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6479
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6314
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5999
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5991
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:6156
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8596
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:7203
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:6272
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5986
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:6201
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5757
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5984
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5812
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6418
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6537
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:6262
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6737
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:6044
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:6183
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6775
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6512
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96495
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:74081
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71493
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70632
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:60003
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.