Restrictions of advertisement and prohibition as to unfair trade practices

Food Supply and Standards Act, 2006: This acts regulates the rules and laws related to the food products and its standards and how it is distributed and advertised. The Sector 24 of this act deals with restrictions of advertisement and prohibition as to unfair trade practices.
It reads as:
"(1) No advertisement shall be made of any food which is misleading or deceiving or contravenes the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) No person shall engage himself in any unfair trade practice for purpose of promoting the sale, supply, use and consumption of articles of food or adopt any unfair or deceptive practice including the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which-
(a) falsely represents that the foods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity or grade- composition;
(b) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness;
(c) gives to the public any guarantee of the efficacy that is not based on an adequate or scientific justification thereof: Provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such guarantee is based on adequate or scientific justification, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence.”

Based on the above mentioned act, the Supreme Court decided on a Public Interest Litigation file by a petitioner on the matter of soft drinks' supply and advertisement. Through this writ petition, the petitioner requested the court to constituting an independent Expert/Technical Committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children, and also for a direction to the government of India to put in place a regulatory regime which could control and check the contents in a particular chemical additive in foods, including soft drinks. It was also one of the demand in the petition were the court must direct the government to to make it mandatory for the soft drinks manufacturers to disclose the contents and their specific quantity on the labels of soft drinks, including appropriate warnings, particular ingredient, and its harmful effects on the people. Petitioner also sought for a direction to the Government of India to check and control the misleading advertising of soft drinks, particularly advertisements targeted at children, unwary uneducated and illiterate people.

The court thoroughly went through various acts and laws which governs the rules and regulations related to the food products. The Counsel for the GOI argued that the parliament has already enacted a law namely Food Supply and Standards Act, 2006 (the FSS Act), which along with its Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, constitute a vigorous regulatory regime, takes care of all the above mentioned situations and provisions of the FSS Act and the Rules and Regulations are being enforced scrupulously and meticulously.

The gave reference of many enactments regarding the manufacturing, distributing and advertising he soft drinks and also stated that "most of the situations have already been taken care of by the above mentioned provisions of the FSS Act as well as the regulations mentioned hereinbefore, so as to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health and protection of consumers’ interest, including fair practices in all counts of food trade with reference to food safety standards and practices."

The court further went on stating that "Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to live with dignity. The right to live with human dignity denies the life breach from the Directive Principles of the State Policy, particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 read with Article 47 of the Constitution of India."

The court was of the view that the provisions of the FSS Act and PFA Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder have to be interpreted and applied in the light of the Constitutional Principles, discussed and endeavour has to be made to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health.

"Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including right to life and human dignity encompasses, within its ambit availability of articles of food, without insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic residues, solvent residues, etc. But the fact remains, many of the food articles like rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk, fruits available in the market contain insecticides or pesticides residues, beyond the tolerable limits, causing serious health hazards. We notice, fruit based soft drinks available in various fruit stalls, contain such pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but no attention is made to examine its contents. Children and infants are uniquely susceptible to the effects of pesticides because of their physiological immaturity and greater exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise."

The court directed the Food and Safety Standards Authority of India to gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the States and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain whether they conform to such standards set by the Act and the Rules.

Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women In India

We often talk about women empowerment and yet we hear cases everyday against women in India. In a recent judgement also, Bombay High Court has quoted that the youth of this country must be taught law to avoid increasing criminal cases in the country.
There are some constitutional rights which is guarded by the Supreme Court of India and then there are some legal rights of the women which can be enforced by any courts in India having jurisdiction to enforce and provide remedy in case of prejudice.

Constitutional Rights:

The Constitution of India has some special provisions through which women in India are provided special constitutional rights. Some are in the form of Fundamental Rights and some are in the form of Fundamental Duties on every citizen. They are: 

1. Article 15 of the constitution provides that "The state shall not discriminate against any citizen of India on the ground of sex". It further empowers the State to make any law which ensures that the right of a woman is not infringed.
2. Article 16 puts restrictions on the state to make sure that any government office or department does not employ any one on the grounds of sex or that the women are deprived of their right to employment in a government office based on sex.
3. Article 23 strictly prohibits Human Trafficking and forced labour. Any one found of this offence will be prosecuted with serious charges under different sections of Indian Penal Code.
4. Article 39 is to provide equal opportunity to both men and women and to provide equal means of livelihood. This article provides a very important right "Equal Pay For Equal Work".
5. Article 42 guarantees every women the right to maternity relief and provides liability on the state to ensure the right is not prejudiced. 
6. Article 51-A(e) puts a liability on every citizen of India in the form of Fundamental Duties. Every citizen of India has a duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

Apart from the above mentioned Constitutional Rights of Women, there are other provisions in the constitution too which ensures reservation of seats in different government bodies for women.

Legal Rights:

From time to time the parliament and the state legislative assembly pass different acts and laws in respect of the women safety and security which in the form of Legal Rights the women exercise. If they are deprived of their legal rights, the State sets up several forms of remedy to ensure justice is delivered.

Some of the enactments are: 

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (1956)

Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act (1986)

Dowry Prohibition Act (1961)

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (1994)

Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act (1939)

and there are a list of many more. Several provisions of Indian Penal Code also ensures that any crime against women will be dealt with severity and harsher punishment will be passed to the culprit.

Many recent judgements have also shown that the courts come upon very hard when it comes to the crime against women.

One cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs: Supreme Court

Supreme Court decided on a crucial case of custody of a child between the divorced couple and pronounced the judgement in the favor of the Father. While deciding the matter the court observed various factors and circumstances of the case. The Court stated that "it becomes, at times, a difficult choice for the court to decide as to whom the custody should be given. No doubt, paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. However, at times the prevailing circumstances are so puzzling that it becomes difficult to weigh the conflicting parameters and decide on which side the balance tilts".

The couple married sometime in the year 1999. They lived in Faridabad for a short while and thereafter the couple shifted to U.K. soon. A girl child was born to them in the U.K. Soon after when their relationship did not go well, they filed divorce petition in the court of U.K and around the same time the man who had shifted to India also obtained the decree of divorce in Indian court. The girl remained with the father since the legal battle started and the court also decided the matter in his favor.

The case came up before the Supreme Court when the couple's daughter, Vaishali, was 11 years of age, the Bench (comprising of Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.) decided to meet Vaishali in order to interact with her to ascertain her view point. After meeting her the bench passed the order which stated “In the proceedings held on January 31, 2013, it was agreed between the parties and was also noted in the order passed on that date that the child Vaishali should stay with respondent No.1 (Sukriti Arora), the mother of the child at her residence in Delhi for one month under monitoring by this Court. In continuation of that order, therefore, we direct that Vaishali should stay with her mother, tentatively for one month from today, subject to any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the meanwhile. Ms. Madhavi Divan, one of the counsel representing the petitioner shall hand over the child to her mother-respondent No.1 outside the court room after we complete the passing of this order. Respondent No.1 shall deposit her passport with the Registrar (J-III) of this Court which shall be returned back to her after Vaishali goes back to her father on completion of the term of her stay with respondent No.1. We are informed that Vaishali's school is reopening from April 4, 2013. On behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that she will ensure that the child reaches the school in time and is brought back to her residence after school hours. The child's stay with her mother will, in no way, affect her attendance at the school or her studies.

During her stay with the mother, the child will be free to speak to her father on telephone. On behalf of respondent No.1, it was stated that she would not create any obstruction in the way of the child speaking to her father. During the child's stay with her mother, we would like some responsible and competent person to monitor the arrangement. We, accordingly, request Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran, who works for the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to monitor the arrangement on behalf of this Court. Mrs. Ramachandran shall visit the mother and the child at the address noted above on a date and time of her convenience. She would inform respondent No.1 on her mobile phone about the proposed date and time of her visit to the respondent's place. She would see how the relationship between the child and the mother is developing and if need be, she would counsel both the child and the mother. If the father wants to visit the child while she is staying with her mother, he may do so at a time when Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran is also present there. For the purpose of the visit he will have to take the necessary permission from Mrs. Ramachandran. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1 that she would like to take the child to some resort or some hill station for a brief holiday. We would like the mother and the child to stay in Delhi itself but, in case, both the child and the mother together wish to go outside, they may do so subject to the permission in writing taken from Mrs. Ramachandran. Mrs. Ramachandran would submit a report to this Court within ten days from today. Let this matter be listed for further direction along with the report from Mrs. Ramachandran on April 12, 2013.”

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 lays down the principles on which custody disputes are to be decided. Section 7 of this Act empowers the Court to make order as to guardianship. Section 17 enumerates the matters which need to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian and among others, enshrines the principle of welfare of the minor child. This is also stated very eloquently in Section 13.

The appellant argued that the child is living since long with the father. The court in response to the argument stated that "The argument is attractive. But the same overlooks a very significant factor. By flouting various orders, leading even to initiation of contempt proceedings, the appellant has managed to keep custody of the child. He cannot be a beneficiary of his own wrongs. The High Court has referred to these aspects in detail in the impugned judgments.”

Read the full judgement here.

The word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 of The Constitution of India does not mean “free from taxation”: Constitution Bench of Supreme Court

In the case of JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court including the former CJI T. S. Thakur has answered the reference in the following terms:

1. Taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. The word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”.

2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article 304(a). It follows that levy of a non-discriminatory tax would not constitute an infraction of Article 301.

3. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read disjunctively.

4. A levy that violates 304(a) cannot be saved even if the procedure under Article 304(b) or the proviso there under is satisfied.

5. The compensatory tax theory evolved in Automobile Transport case and subsequently modified in Jindal’s case has no juristic basis and is therefore rejected.

6. Decisions of this Court in Atiabari, Automobile Transport and Jindal cases (supra) and all other judgments that follow these pronouncements are to the extent of such reliance over ruled.

7. A tax on entry of goods into a local area for use, sale or consumption therein is permissible although similar goods are not produced within the taxing state.

8. Article 304 (a) frowns upon discrimination (of a hostile nature in the protectionist sense) and not on mere differentiation. Therefore, incentives, set-offs etc. granted to a specified class of dealers for a limited period of time in a non-hostile fashion with a view to developing economically backward areas would not violate Article 304(a). The question whether the levies in the present case indeed satisfy this test is left to be determined by the regular benches hearing the matters.

9. States are well within their right to design their fiscal legislations to ensure that the tax burden on goods imported from other States and goods produced within the State fall equally. Such measures if taken would not contravene Article 304(a) of the Constitution. The question whether the levies in the present case indeed satisfy this test is left to be determined by the regular benches hearing the matters.

10. The questions whether the entire State can be notified as a local area and whether entry tax can be levied on goods entering the landmass of India from another country are left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings.

Read the full judgement here.