LAXMIKANT versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 861 · Decided: 11-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
LAXMIKANT 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Dmgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 : 
S. 33-DDE-Notification dated 30th Ap1il 1992 prohibiting manufac-
ture and sale of all Aywvedic Dntgs licensed as tooth-pastes/tooth-powders 
containing tobacco-Validity of-Held : Intemational Conference held in col-
laboration with World Health Organisation was of opinion that total ban 011 
use of tobacco in tooth paste and tooth-powder should be imposed-Hence 
the view taken by the Govemme11t of India imposing total prohibition on the 
use of tobacco in the preparation of tooth-powder and tooth-paste is well 
justified iii public i11terest-Co11stitutio11 of India, A1t. 19( 1 ), 19(6). 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3000 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.95 of the Madhya 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 1456 of 1995. 
E 
R.F. Nariman, Rajiv S. Ray and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, Ms. Anubha Jain, M.P. Shorawala and Mrs. Anil 
Katiyar for the Respondents Union of India. 
K.N. Shukla, Prashant Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for State of Mad-
hya Pradesh. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides. 
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment passed by the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench, on November 23, 1995. 
The appellant is a manufacturer of tooth-paste, using tobacco as one 
F 
G 
of the ingredients therein. The Government exercising the power under H 
861 
862 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A Section 33-DDE of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the 
"Act") issued notification as under : 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
'.'MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE 
(DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) 
NOTIFIC4 TION 
New Delhi, the 30th April, 1992. 
GSR-443(E), Whereas, the Central Government is satisfied on 
the basis of evidence and other material before it that the use of 
tobacco in tooth-pastes/tooth-powders is likely to involve risk to 
human beings and that is necessary and expedient in the public 
interest so to do; 
Now, therefore, in exercise of powders conferred by Section 
33(EED) of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1949, the 
Central Government hereby prohibit the manufacture and scale 
of all Ayurvedic Drugs licensed as tooth-pastes/tooth-powders 
containing tobacco. 
(No. X. 11014/3/91-DM-S & PFA) 
H.S. Lamba, Jt. Secy." 
Calling that notification in question, the appellant filed a writ petition 
in the High Court. The High Court has upheld the notification and dis-
missed the same. Thus this appeal, by special leave. 
When the matter came up before this Court for admission on 
30.7.1996, this Court noted as under : 
"The petitioner has impugned the notification of the Govt. of India, 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 30.4.92 prohibiting 
the use of tobacco in the manufacture and sale of all Ayurvedic 
drugs including tooth-powder and tooth-paste containing tobacco. 
The High Court on elaborate consideration upheld the bar 
prohibiting the use of tobacco. Shri R.F. Nariman, learned counsel 
for the petitioner, contends that what was prohibited was use of 
50% ~nd more of tobacco in the preparation of the Ayurvedic 
drugs including tooth-paste and tooth-powder containing tobacco. 
LAXMIKANT v. U.0.l. 
863 
The petitioner is using only 4% tobacco. If there is evidence or A 
reports to indicate that even 4% tobacco also would cause hazard-
ous effects including cancerous effects, the petitioner would not 
mind to close the manufacturing of tooth-paste and tooth-powder. 
Issue notice on this limited question." 
On that basis, notice was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by B 
the respondents stating that the view that there should be total ban of use 
of tobacco in the preparation of tooth-paste was taken by the Government 
in consultation with the Expert Committee constituted in that behalf and 
that, therefore, the notification is valid in law. Shri R.F. Narirnan, learned 
senior counsel appearing for the appeliant, contended that in view of the 
C 
divergent views expressed by the members of the Board, total ban is not 
correct proposition; the permitted use of 4% would not be injurious to the 
health of the user of tooth-paste and that, therefore, the view taken is not 
factually correct in law. We find no force in the contention. 
It is an admitted position that the Expert Body of A yurvedic, Siddha D 
and Unan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.