Chewing Tobacco Not Classified as Food Under FSS Act: Kerala High Court Judgment in Joshy K.V. v. State Of Kerala

Introduction

The case of Joshy K.V. v. State Of Kerala adjudicated by the Kerala High Court on December 20, 2012, centers on the legal classification and regulatory framework governing the sale and distribution of chewing tobacco in the State of Kerala. Petitioners, comprising dealers and manufacturers of tobacco products, challenged the validity of the state's prohibition on the sale of certain tobacco-based products, specifically arguing that chewing tobacco should not be regulated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act). The central issue revolved around whether chewing tobacco constitutes a "food product" under the FSS Act and, consequently, if the state could enforce bans on its sale based on health-related regulations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court delivered a landmark judgment determining that chewing tobacco does not qualify as a "food product" under the FSS Act. Consequently, the state's efforts to ban the import and sale of chewing tobacco under Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 were deemed unconstitutional in this context. The court concluded that the prohibition outlined in the Ext.P9 order specifically targets products like gutkha and panmasala containing tobacco or nicotine, but does not extend to pure chewing tobacco or its derivatives. Therefore, the sale and distribution of chewing tobacco should be regulated strictly under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (CTP Act), and not the FSS Act.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on established legal precedents to delineate the boundaries between food products and tobacco items:

Ram Babu Rastogi v. State Through Food Inspector (PFA), Government of NCT of Delhi: The Delhi High Court concluded that chewing tobacco is not a "food product," thereby excluding it from regulations pertaining to food safety.
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore: The Madras High Court held that products like panmasala and gutkha are distinct from food items and should be regulated separately.
Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange: A Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the broad definition of "food" under the relevant statutes, emphasizing that common consumables intended for taste and nourishment fall within this category.
Krishan Gopal Sharma v. Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi: The Supreme Court reiterated that pan masala and mouth fresheners, despite containing tobacco, fall under the definition of "food."

These precedents collectively underscored the necessity to interpret statutory definitions contextually, considering societal usage and legislative intent.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the court's legal reasoning hinged on statutory interpretation, particularly the definitions provided in the FSS Act and the CTP Act:

Definition of Food under FSS Act: The court examined Section 3(j) of the FSS Act, which broadly defines "food" to include any substance intended for human consumption. However, it emphasized that this definition does not automatically classify all consumable products as food. The intent behind consumption—whether for nourishment or other purposes—plays a pivotal role.
Chewing Tobacco as Non-Food: The petitioners argued that since chewing tobacco is intended for consumption, it should be classified as food. The court countered this by highlighting that tobacco, in its unadulterated form, is not consumed for nourishment or taste but rather for its psychoactive effects, thereby excluding it from the "food" category.
Regulation 2.3.4 Applicability: Since the regulation in question applies exclusively to food products containing harmful substances like tobacco or nicotine, and chewing tobacco does not fall under "food," the prohibition was found inapplicable.
Concurrent Legislation: The court noted that the CTP Act and the FSS Act operate concurrently but regulate different aspects. While the CTP Act governs the production, sale, and advertisement of tobacco products, the FSS Act regulates food safety. The non-overlapping domains necessitated a clear distinction between the two for regulatory actions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the regulatory landscape surrounding tobacco products in India:

Clarification of Regulatory Boundaries: By distinguishing chewing tobacco from food products, the court provided clarity on which legal framework applies to different categories of tobacco and related products.
Precedent for Future Cases: Future litigations involving the classification and regulation of consumable products containing tobacco can reference this judgment to argue for appropriate jurisdictional applicability of laws.
State Regulatory Autonomy: States can now better align their regulations with the correct legislative frameworks, ensuring that bans and prohibitions are implemented within the appropriate statutory boundaries.
Industry Compliance: Manufacturers and dealers of chewing tobacco can adjust their compliance strategies to focus on the CTP Act rather than the FSS Act, potentially reducing legal ambiguities and operational hindrances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act): A comprehensive legislation governing the safety and standards of food products intended for human consumption in India.
Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (CTP Act): An act that regulates the advertisement, trade, and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products to protect public health.
Regulation 2.3.4: A clause under the FSS Act's regulations that prohibits the use of harmful substances like tobacco and nicotine in food products.
Ext.P9 Order: A government order issued under the FSS Act to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale, or distribution of specific tobacco-containing products in Kerala.
Legal Fiction: A legal assumption made by courts to apply certain principles despite they may not hold strictly true in reality, for practical purposes of law.
Lexicographic Learning: Interpretation based strictly on the dictionary definitions of words, often disregarding contextual or societal implications.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's judgment in Joshy K.V. v. State Of Kerala serves as a critical clarification in the nexus between food safety regulations and tobacco product legislation. By decisively categorizing chewing tobacco outside the ambit of the FSS Act and affirming its regulation under the CTP Act, the court has delineated clear regulatory pathways. This not only aids in the streamlined governance of tobacco products but also ensures that public health measures are applied within their intended legal frameworks. The distinction empowers both regulatory authorities and the tobacco industry to operate within defined legal parameters, fostering a more predictable and just legal environment.