Nagpur: Despite the direction of the Supreme Court to evaluate the pros and cons of compulsory iodisation of salt within six months, the Centre has yet to take a call on the issue.
Dr Shantilal Kothari, chairman of the Academy of Nutrition Improvement, a local NGO fighting for the cause, told reporters yesterday that the Centre could have sought extension in the period stipulated by the apex court in its July 2011 order, which expired on January 4.
The SC in its order had quashed Rule 44-I of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by which common salt was banned and iodised salt was made compulsory holding it as ultra vires of the Act.
A division bench of Justice R V Ravindran and Justice B Sudershan Reddy after weighing on the relative merits of universal iodised salt to remove nutritional deficiencies prevalent in 268 districts in the country had directed the Centre to undertake scientific study and if necessary come out with a separate legislation.
The section 44-I of the Act–a delegated legislation was ultra vires the original act, the SC had held while partly allowing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Dr Kothari.
The petition questioned the logic, rationale and scientific basis behind a total ban on common salt and produced medical evidence against the ban. He claimed that 90 percent Indians did not suffer from any iodine deficiency and compulsory iodised salt was introduced to benefit few MNCs.
Constant use of iodised salt on account of compulsory iodisation would lead to iodine-induced hyper-thyroidism with increased chances of death, he had contended.
The Centre on the other hand had cited several scientific studies conducted by the core group of Ministry of Health and a recent directive of NHRC strongly recommending compulsory iodised salt and asking it not to relax it under any pressure. The SC after discussing the controversy and divergent medical and scientific opinion had made it clear that courts were not equipped nor supposed to express their view in such a sensitive matter where even the scientific world was sharply divided. “At present there is no material to show that universal salt iodisation will be injurious to public health, but we are constrained to hold that rule 44-I is ultra vires the Act and therefore, not valid.
The result would be that the ban on sale of non-iodised salt for human consumption will be raised, which may not be in the interest of public health,” the apex court had observed. (PTI)