The Madras High Court made a recent statement emphasizing that permanently shutting down a shop solely for selling banned tobacco products isn't justified. Consequently, the court instructed the Food Safety and Drug Administration authorities to unseal these shops.

Justice GR Swaminathan mentioned that, as per the Food Safety and Standard Rules 2011, sealing shops was intended for situations where compliance with procedures outlined in Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 was not feasible. The court emphasized that while there might have been a valid reason for sealing the premises initially, there should be a point where it needs to be unsealed.

“Even if there is justification in initially sealing the premises, at some point of time or the other, they have to be de sealed.''

The court highlighted the constitutional right of shop owners to conduct their business, which is safeguarded by the Constitution. However, it clarified that the Constitution doesn't grant the right to trade in banned items. While acknowledging that shopkeepers could continue selling other products, the court emphasized that sealing the shop compromised their right to earn a livelihood.

The court was addressing petitions submitted by two shopkeepers whose businesses had been locked and sealed due to their sale of prohibited tobacco products. These individuals had sought the court's intervention to have the seals removed from their shops.

The Additional Advocate General argued that both the Food Safety and Standards Act and its accompanying Rules authorize the designated officer to secure and seal locations where prohibited items are found. Emphasizing the significant impact of selling gutka and similar products on public health, he asserted that such activities pose a serious threat to society. Consequently, he requested the swift dismissal of the plea. Upon reviewing Section 38 of the Act, which delineates the powers vested in the Food Safety Officer, the court observed that the Act did not explicitly authorize the official in question to seal premises where the alleged contraband was stored.

The court additionally observed that according to Rule 2.1.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, the Food Safety Officer had the authority to seal premises for investigation if compliance with the Act's provisions seemed unfeasible. However, the court clarified that these rules were confined by the boundaries of the Act itself. It highlighted that the Rules were formulated solely to facilitate the execution of the Act's provisions. Consequently, the act of sealing could only be justified if the prescribed procedures outlined in the parent Act couldn't be adhered to.

In this specific instance, the court observed that the act of sealing the shops was unjustified because there was no evidence indicating that the shopkeepers were inaccessible or that compliance with the Act's procedures was unattainable. Consequently, the court concluded that the actions taken by the authorities did not meet the standards of proportionality.

Mr. B. Jameel Arasu represented the petitioner, while Mr. Veera Kathiravan, aided by Mr. K. Balasubramani, acted as counsel for the respondent in the case.