Home  > Recent Judgements >Use Of Tartrazine Not An Adulteration Of Food: Supreme Court

 August 28, 2024

USE OF TARTRAZINE NOT AN ADULTERATION OF FOOD: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court of India has recently determined that the use of the artificial yellow food colouring, Tartrazine, in food items does not constitute an offense under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the “Act”). This ruling, delivered by a bench comprising two judges, overturned the previous conviction of an appellant who had been penalized under the Act. The central issue was whether the use of Tartrazine, a synthetic food colour, amounted to food adulteration.

BACKGROUND

The appellant was initially convicted by the trial court for the use of Tartrazine in 750 grams of Dal Moong Dhuli (split green gram), resulting in a sentence of six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. This conviction was predicated on the assumption that the use of Tartrazine was not permitted and thus constituted an offense under the Act. Subsequently, the appellate court modified the conviction to three months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 7 of the Act.

The appellant’s subsequent appeals to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana were dismissed on December 4, 2013, and again on March 18, 2019, during a revision appeal. At the age of 60, having already served one month and eight days in jail, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court contending that Tartrazine is a permitted food colour under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

ISSUES IN THE CASE:

  1. whether the use of Tartrazine, a synthetic food colour, constituted food adulteration under the Act.
  2. whether the use of a legally sanctioned food colour could still be considered adulteration under the Rules of 1955.
  3. whether the appellant’s conviction was justified given the regulatory framework.

CONTENTIONS BY THE PARTY

Appellant

The appellant argued that Tartrazine is a sanctioned food colour under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 specifically citing Rule 28, which authorizes the use of Tartrazine as a synthetic food colour. The appellant argued that the conviction was unwarranted, given that the use of Tartrazine is explicitly permitted under the 1955 Rules. Consequently, the application of this colouring in Dal Moong Dhuli should not be deemed an offense under the Act. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the lower courts had misinterpreted the relevant legal provisions, resulting in an erroneous conviction and sentencing.

Prosecution

The prosecution contended that the use of Tartrazine in Dal Moong Dhuli amounted to food adulteration under the Act. They argued that the presence of synthetic food colouring could potentially deceive consumers regarding the quality and safety of the food product. Additionally, the prosecution raised concerns about the health implications associated with synthetic food colours, positing that their use could pose risks to consumers, thereby justifying the conviction under the Act.

SUPREME COURT”S RULING

The Supreme Court observed that Rule 28 of the 1955 Rules explicitly permits the use of Tartrazine as a synthetic food colouring. The Court emphasized that laboratory tests confirmed the presence of Tartrazine in the 750 grams of Dal Moong Dhuli, which was part of a 15 kg batch found with the appellant. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant’s conviction under Section 16 of the Act was erroneous, given that the use of Tartrazine was permitted under Rule 28.

Furthermore, the Court referred Rule 29, which enumerates the types of food items on which permitted food colours can be applied. Since Dal Moong Dhuli was not specifically excluded, the Court reinforced that its colouring with Tartrazine did not constitute an offense. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ judgment affirming that the appellant’s actions were lawful under the current regulations. The Court clarified that using a permitted food colouring like Tartrazine does not fall under the category of food adulteration under the Act.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RULING

This ruling elucidates the application of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, particularly concerning the use of synthetic food colours such as Tartrazine. It ensures that legally sanctioned uses are not erroneously penalized. The decision establishes a legal precedent for interpreting the Act and its corresponding rules of 1955, specifically in differentiating between permitted and prohibited additives in food products.

The judgment safeguards the rights of individuals and businesses to utilize additives permitted by law without facing unwarranted criminal penalties, thereby ensuring that legal standards are applied uniformly and equitably.

OBSERVATION

The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the critical importance of strict adherence to the specific provisions of food safety regulations. It elucidates that the use of permitted food colourings, such as Tartrazine, in designated food items cannot be construed as an offense under the Act. This decision not only clarifies the legal framework governing the use of food colourings but also ensures that individuals and businesses are not unjustly subjected to criminal penalties for complying with established food safety standards.

For more information or queries, please email us at

[email protected]

Key Contact

Surendra Singh Chandrawat

Managing Partner