• Services For Users/Clients
      • Business Registrations
      • GST Registration (Person)
      • GST Registration (Company)
      • Importer Exporter Code
      • Trade License
      • FSSAI Registration
      • Udyog Aadhaar/MSME Registration
      • Shops & Establishments Registration
      • Partnership Firm Registration
      • Private Limited Company Registration
      • Producer Company Registration
      • Instant Legal Advise
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Email)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Analysis (By Email)
      • Contracts & Agreements
      • Business Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • Affidavits, Notary, Wills & POAs
      • Affidavit
      • Notary
      • Will
      • Codicil
      • General Power of Attorney
      • Special Power of Attorney
      • Attestation
      • Legal Research & Judgement Analysis
      • Judgments Search
      • Related Judgements Analysis
      • Laws/Reports/Acts Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Pleadings & Petitions Analysis
      • Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • High Courts & State Forums
      • Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Application Analysis
      • Exhibits Analysis
      • Evidence Analysis
  • Services For Lawyers
      • Online Office & Case Management
      • Assisted Online Case(s) & Calendar Management
      • Assisted Online Billing & Invoicing Assistance
      • Assistance in Recruiting Associates, Juniors, Staff
      • Assistance in Recruiting Interns
      • Translation, Transcription & Typing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • On-call Typing
      • Typing
      • Trial Preparation
      • Opening & Closing Statements
      • Pointers & Charts
      • Drafting & Document Management
      • Drafting Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Document Conversion (Jpeg to Word/PDF, PDF to Word etc)
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Drafting Wills/POAs/GPA/SPA/Affidavits
      • Legal Research
      • Judgment search
      • Laws, Acts & Reports Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Related Judgments Search
      • Pleadings & Petitions Drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - High Courts & State Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Applications & Affidavits drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder Proof Reading
      • Indexing & Table of contents
      • Preparing & Marking Exhibits
      • E Filing
  • +91 9632247247
  • Sign In/Sign Up
Menu
  • +Users/Clients Back

    • Get Fee Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Assistant
  • +Lawyers

    • Display Boards
    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Petitions & Pleadings Templates
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Secretary
  • +Law Students

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

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Legal News
  • 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:185

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:185

News Updates

Jharkhand administration and the media receive dir...
22 Jan 2021     Views:39
Gujarat High Court orders immediate release of arr...
21 Jan 2021     Views:34
Perjury proceedings can be instituted upon complai...
21 Jan 2021     Views:34
No Unnecessary Adjournments Should be Allowed: All...
21 Jan 2021     Views:47
Bombay High Court rejects appeal by Sonu Sood seek...
21 Jan 2021     Views:46
A Judge Should Not Make Mistakes Due to Haste: All...
21 Jan 2021     Views:50
Review petitions challenging Aadhaar verdict dismi...
21 Jan 2021     Views:49
Supreme Court Issues Notice In The Petition Filed ...
20 Jan 2021     Views:43
Allahabad High Court Seeks Response Of UP Govt & N...
20 Jan 2021     Views:49
Father-son relation does not confer fundamental ri...
20 Jan 2021     Views:41
Karnataka High Court Issues New SOP: Advocates to ...
20 Jan 2021     Views:50
Relief under Probation of Offenders Act is not exc...
20 Jan 2021     Views:58
Bombay HC Rejects Republic TV's Contention ...
20 Jan 2021     Views:55
Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR in Connectio...
20 Jan 2021     Views:63
Applicability of Notification on Increased IBC Thr...
19 Jan 2021     Views:71
Hindu Sena chief files complaint in Patiala House ...
19 Jan 2021     Views:38
Petition to Squash Complaint Under Sec.482 Of CRPC...
19 Jan 2021     Views:77
Promotion on the basis of Educational Qualificatio...
19 Jan 2021     Views:73
SCBA asks Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad to gran...
19 Jan 2021     Views:56
Interim Protection Granted To Man Who Called CM Yo...
19 Jan 2021     Views:75
Allahabad High Court quashes non-compoundable case...
18 Jan 2021     Views:65
The High court of Tripura refused to entertain the...
18 Jan 2021     Views:56
Supreme Court holds compensation can only be provi...
18 Jan 2021     Views:69
Read Supreme Court Judgements on Anticipatory Bail...
18 Jan 2021     Views:62
Delhi HC issues notice on petition challenging Ins...
18 Jan 2021     Views:56
Petition before the Supreme Court challenges All-I...
18 Jan 2021     Views:90
Person unable to find a surety can take benefit of...
18 Jan 2021     Views:61
Delhi High Court Stays Mohit Saraf's Termination F...
18 Jan 2021     Views:65
If The Parties Agrees To Admit To Talaq Without An...
18 Jan 2021     Views:47
Patients cannot be deprived of treatment due to ex...
18 Jan 2021     Views:73
Seventeen Sub Judges Appointed as District Judges ...
18 Jan 2021     Views:54
State of Gujarat liable to pay Rs.25,000 for its i...
17 Jan 2021     Views:52
A Person Can Be Discharged on Bail Under Sec. 445 ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:85
MP High Court Adjourns Hearing In Comedian Munawar...
17 Jan 2021     Views:57
Notice Issued By Delhi High Court To The Center In...
17 Jan 2021     Views:53
Calcutta High Court Issues Contempt Notice To The ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:177
Delhi High Court Allows Reopening of Spas, Wellnes...
17 Jan 2021     Views:44
WhatsApp messages to hold evidentiary value only u...
17 Jan 2021     Views:73
FIR Registered Against Over 10 People For Compromi...
17 Jan 2021     Views:67
Delhi HC hikes amount of compensation to parents o...
17 Jan 2021     Views:67
Committee Constituted By Calcutta High Court To En...
16 Jan 2021     Views:36
Advance paid to property owner by real-estate deve...
16 Jan 2021     Views:38
Karnataka High Court Directs Govt To Reconsider Ci...
16 Jan 2021     Views:38
High Court of Punjab and Haryana Orders for Allowi...
16 Jan 2021     Views:38
Karnataka High Court seeks information regarding ...
16 Jan 2021     Views:46
Kerala HC orders the state to consider the grievan...
16 Jan 2021     Views:39
BSES-RPL liable for damages not on basis of proof ...
16 Jan 2021     Views:79
Reconsider decision to physical hearing: Letter to...
16 Jan 2021     Views:66
Disclosure of interest in the information sought u...
16 Jan 2021     Views:89
Stay Order Issued Against GST Notice Served on Adv...
16 Jan 2021     Views:83
Karnataka Government directed to reconsider circul...
15 Jan 2021     Views:67
Writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized by a litigant...
15 Jan 2021     Views:39
Delhi HC issues notice on a plea on non-implementa...
15 Jan 2021     Views:36
Whether an arbitrator appointed by a person who is...
15 Jan 2021     Views:48
Karnataka District Courts to resume normal functio...
15 Jan 2021     Views:56
Constitutional Rights is at Stake: Kerala HC on De...
15 Jan 2021     Views:60
Same gender sexual harassment cases maintainable u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:89
The Delhi High Court issues notice in petition reg...
15 Jan 2021     Views:71
The state is not ready to deal with the demographi...
15 Jan 2021     Views:71
Mandatory investigation of all custodial deaths: N...
15 Jan 2021     Views:71
Accused should be subjected to blood test or breat...
15 Jan 2021     Views:79
Order Terminating Arbitration Proceedings Under Se...
15 Jan 2021     Views:90
Allahabad High Court tells UP government to come u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:101
Cannot Maintain Writ Petition Against Purely Priva...
14 Jan 2021     Views:68
Plea seeking live streaming of open court proceedi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:44
Calcutta High Court : Have the power to set aside ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:71
11 Benches of the Delhi High Court to resume physi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:53
The prudent citizen should abide by the order of t...
14 Jan 2021     Views:50
Parking facilities in malls liable to pay service ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:122
Madras High Court indicates close nexus between ri...
14 Jan 2021     Views:72
SEBI Boycotts Anchor Hemant Gahi, His Wife And His...
14 Jan 2021     Views:166
Supreme Court registers Suo moto case on “Remed...
14 Jan 2021     Views:255
Mandatory publication of notice inviting objection...
14 Jan 2021     Views:66
Directions issued towards timely service of notic...
13 Jan 2021     Views:57
Delhi HC allows termination of pregnancy after 20 ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:49
Andhra Pradesh High Court Suspends Schedule For Lo...
13 Jan 2021     Views:62
Delhi High Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of...
13 Jan 2021     Views:60
Progress in Sonu Sood's Plea Against BMC Notice: B...
13 Jan 2021     Views:52
Supreme Court Dismisses The Plea Against The High ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:64
Central Government notifies establishment of Natio...
13 Jan 2021     Views:83
Criminal liability of non-political executives can...
13 Jan 2021     Views:56
Rs. 20,000 Costs Imposed on Defendant who Cited th...
13 Jan 2021     Views:60
Notice issued to centre by Karnataka HC on plea ch...
13 Jan 2021     Views:179
Supreme Court refuses to entertain special leave p...
13 Jan 2021     Views:67
Sexual harassment on digital platform constitutes ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:71
SC refuses to set aside conviction, life term of 7...
13 Jan 2021     Views:53
SC directs demolition of a hotel-cum-restaurant in...
12 Jan 2021     Views:59
Delhi HC quashes GST order to attach bank account ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:52
CBDT declines extension of due dates for filing re...
12 Jan 2021     Views:57
Calcutta High Court imposes cost on defendant for ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:57
The Counter Affidavit Filed In The Supreme Court B...
12 Jan 2021     Views:57
Allahabad High Court to Decide on Plea for Relaxat...
12 Jan 2021     Views:60
Stay on Kerala HC’s order of setting aside the a...
12 Jan 2021     Views:52
High Court arrest should be the last option and sh...
12 Jan 2021     Views:78
Delhi HC issues notice on plea seeking child marri...
12 Jan 2021     Views:58
India proposes a Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolutio...
12 Jan 2021     Views:88
NCLT allows Josco to reduce share capital structur...
12 Jan 2021     Views:68
Kerala High Court Unhappy With DOC's Enquiry Into ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:69
Supreme Court acquits accused on death row, deems ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:71
Non-payment of Stamp duty on commercial contract d...
12 Jan 2021     Views:85
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Misusing Religion for Electoral Gains: PIL in SC for Action against Parties, Candidates
    On 31 May 2018    Views:11967
  • Bci Directs To Supply Of The Details Of Every Practising Advocate As Per The Format Required By The E-committee Of The Supreme Court Of India.
    On 01 Aug 2020    Views:11239
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:10675
  • Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt
    On 22 Jul 2020    Views:10231
  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:7766
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
  • Demo My Legal Assistant
  • Demo My Legal Secretary

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
  • Campus Ambassadors
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1122 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

 

  •  
  •  
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.