Holding

Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 and the Delhi Poisons Rules amendment declaring "thinner" a poison are constitutionally valid and do not violate the principles of reasonableness or non‑discrimination.

Summary

Goodwill Paint and Chemical Industry, a manufacturer of "thinner", filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 and a 1973 Delhi Poisons Rules amendment that classified thinner as a poison. The petitioners argued that the provision gave the State an arbitrary and un‑guided power to declare any substance a poison, that the restriction on possession and sale was unreasonable, and that the scheme allowed discriminatory application across states. The Supreme Court held that the object of the Act is to regulate the trade in poisons and that the legislature validly empowered State governments to declare substances as poisons through notifications or rules. The Court observed that "poison" cannot be exhaustively defined and that substances harmful to health, such as thinner, may be regulated. It further ruled that the power to make such declarations is not discriminatory and that the presumption clause in Section 5 is constitutionally valid. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 as a presumption clause.
Whether the State's power to declare any substance as poison under the Act is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Whether the restriction on possession and sale of "thinner" constitutes an unreasonable restriction on trade.
Whether the scheme permits discriminatory application across different states.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Delhi Poisons Rules, 1926s. Rule 13, s. Rule 2
Poisons Act, 1919s. 2, s. 4, s. 5

Subjects

Poisons ActSection 5Delhi Poisons Rulesthinnerconstitutional validityarbitrary powerreasonable restrictiondiscriminationpublic healthtrade regulationArticle 32

Judgment

GOODWILL PAINT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
y
SEPTEMBER 27, 1991

[ KULDIP SINGH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ. ] B
Poisons Act, 19.19-Sections 5, 2, Notification No. F.10/44172-fin.
(G)-D/-7.8.1973 issued under the Delhi Poisons Rules-Constitutional
validity of.

Poisons Act, 1919-Sections 4, 2 read with Rule 13 of Delhi Poisons
c
Rules, 1926-J'Poisons" constrnction-ludicial notice of "thinner" being
dangerous to lif~estriction on trade on poisonous substances--mzether
reasonable.
The Lt. Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons Rules, 1926 by
the Notification No. F.10/44172-fin. (G) dated 7.8.1973 by including to the D
list of substances included in the Rules as "Poisons", the substance
commonly known as "thinner" containing spirit and other soluble
material.

The petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
questioned the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919
E
on the groounds that the section gives an arbitrary power to the State
Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of
restriction to be imposed on the possession for sale and sale of the same;
--J.. that the restriction imposed on possession for sale and sale were not
reasonable restrictions; that though the Act was a Central enactment, it F
was possible of unjust and unjustified discriminatory application as it was
left to each State Government to determine what substance they would
include as poison, and that the substance, 'thinner', manufactured by the
. petitioners would not come within the amended Rules.

Dismissing the petition, this Court, .. G
'-t HELD: 1. The object of the enactment is to regulate the possession
for sale and the sale, whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the
importation of the same. In other words, it is intended to control ()Ver the·
traffic in poisons. [221 F]
H
219
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A 2. The Poisons Act, 1919 enabled State Government to declare any k·
substance as poison for the purposes of the Act by a notification under the
.Act or the rules made under the Act. (221-G]

3. It is not all poisonous substances that are brought within the
regulation under the Act. It is those substances which the Government
B consider its possession for sale or sale to be regulated in the interest of
health and safety of the society. This limitation is inherent in the scheme of
the Act itself. (223-C-D] .~

4. No comprehensive definition can be given to the word, "poison".
C Under this term would_ fall anything calculated to destroy life. Substances
harmless in themselves might become poison by the time or manner of
their administration. Nothing is a f'.>ison unless regard be had to its
administration. A substance may be a deadly poison or a valuable
medicine according to how and how much is taken. If the resultant effect of
administering into the system produces a violent, morbid or fatal changes
D or which destroys living tissues, the substance can be safely called poison. 'f
Any substance which is used for purposes mentioned therein section 4 can
definitely be declared as poison. (223 D-F]

5. It has become a notorious fact that the substance known as
E 'thinner' as it is or mixing with some other substances are taken as
intoxicating spirits endangering the life. In many cases deat:is have also
occurred due t6 drinking such substance. If the Government thought in
the circumstances that the possession or sale of the same is to be regulated ~_
it could not be.said that they have no power to regulate. Section 2 also
enables the Government to regulate the possession for sale and the sale of
F the specified poison. (223 G-H; 224 A]

6. The nature of trade in poison is such that nobody can be
considered to have an absolute right to carry on the same. It is a business
which can be termed even as inherently dangerous to health and safety of
G society in view of the rampant misuse and sale to the· poor, weak and
helpless as an intoxicant. A law in such circumstance can regulate the Y
. trade. It is also not necessary that the same substance should be declared
as poison for the entire country. The notification and its application to any
area would depend on the necessity to declare the substance ~ poison on
the particular facts and situation prevailing in that area and the need to
H
GOODWILL INDUSfRY v. U. 0. I. [RAMASWAMI, J.] 221

regulate the possession and sale· in that area. No question of A
y discrimination can arise in s11ch circumstances. [224 G-H; 225 A]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 677of1988.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
P.N. Duda, N. Safaya, P.K. Choudhary and Ms. Rekha Pandey for
B
the Petitioners.
J, ~ Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini and K.
Swamy for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
V. RAMASWAMI, J~ In this petition under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Sec-
tion 5 of the Poisons Act, 1919 (12 of 1919) (hereinafter called 'the Act').
The grounds on which the vires of the provisions is attacked are that the
section gives an unguided, unchanelised and arbitrary power to the State D
y Government to include any substance as poison for the purpose of restric-
tion to be imposed on the po~session for sale and sale of the same. It was
further contended that t~e restriction imposed on possession for sale and
sale were not reasonable restrictions. The petitioner's have also taken the
plea that though the Act is a Central enactment it is possible of unjust and
unjustified discriminatory application as it is left to each State Government E
to determine what substance they would include as poison and regulated
and the decision in one State to include the substance as poison is not
--....1.__ automatically made applicable to.the other States.

· The object of the enactment is to regulate the possession for sale and
the sale, whether wholesale or retail of poisons and the importation of the F
same. In other words, it is intended to control over the traffic in poisons.
Though the original enactment, the Poisons Act, 1904 was restricted, it was
applicable to white arsenic, the Poisons Act, 1919 expanded its provisions
and enabled State Government to declare any substance as poison for the
purroses of. the Act by a notification under the Act or the rules made
under the Act.
G
"'--"(
In exercise of this power by the Notification No. F.10/44n2-fin. (G)
• dated 7.8.i973 the Lt. Governor of Delhi amended the Delhi Poisons
Rules, 1926 (hereinafter called the Rules) by including to the list of sub-
stances included in the Rules as "Poisons" "the substance commonly known H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A as 'thinner' eontaining spirit and other soluble material such as shellac in 'k
which the percentage of such soluble material does not exceed 30%" as
poison and consequential amendment of rules 12 and 13 of the Rules. It
was the contention of the petitioners before the authorities that their "unit
is manufacturing only those thinners which contain only liquid substance,
like as ecotone, ethyl acetate SDS etc. and not all solubles." According to
B them, therefore, the substance manufactured by them would not come
within the amended Rules. Though in the beginning the petitioners were
contending that in substance manufactured by them did not come within .._
.
Rule 2(x)(2) and there were some correspondence in this regard, when the
competent authority held that the substance manufactured by the
petitioners would come within the definition of 'thinner' as contained in
c Rule 2(x)(2) of the Rules, the petitioners did not question the finding on
any material. Before us also they had not placed any material to show that
the finding was wrong or that the substance would not come within Rule
2(x)(2). In fact the learned counsel argued the petition on the basis that the
petitioners are a manufacturer of 'thinner' within Rule 2(x)(2) which has
D been declared as poison for purposes of the Act.

Originally the Act contained a schedule in which the list of substan-
y
ces declared as poisons were listed. Later when Delhi Poisons Rules, 1926
were made in exercise of the powers under the Act those list of substances
were included in the list enumerated in Rule 2 thereof. Rule 2 was
amended as already stated including 'thinner' of the description mentioned
E therein as poison. Section 5 of the Act the constitutional validity of which is
questioned reads as follows: -
.
"5. Presumption as to specified poisons: )..----
Any substance specified as a poison in a rule made or notifica-
tion issued under this Act shall be deemed to be a poison for
F the purpose of this Act."

It was a law in force in the territory of India before the commence-
ment of the Constitution and as such continued in force .. The Act is in-
tended to regulate the importation, possession and sale of poisons. Some
substances were included in the Rules made in 1926 as poisons and tliat is
G not in dispute. y
•
Section 5 of the. Act deals with presumption and states that any '
substarice specified as a poison in a Rule or notification issued under the
Act shall be deemed to be a 'poison' for purposes of the Act. Rules of 1926
H were made in exercise of the rule making power under Section 3 of the Act.
GOODWILL INDUSI'RY v. U. 0. I. (RAMASWAMI, J.] 223

That Section enables the State Government to make Rules generally to A
'--? carry out the purposes and objects of the Act. Rules were amended in 1973
and duly notified as required by the Act. Section 2(3) of the Poisons Act,
1/1904 defined poison as:

"Any substance which were applied to the body internally or
externally, or in any way intro~uced into the system, is capable, B
without acting mechanically, but by its own inherent qualities,.
or destroying life."
J
When this Act 1/1904 was repealed and re-enacted as Poison Act 12
of 1919 the definition was omitted and specified substances were included
in the schedule with a power vested in the State Government to amend the c
same by Rules including other substances to the list of poisons. It is not all
poisonous substances that are brought within the regulation under the Act.
It is those substances which the Government consider its possession for
sale or sale to be regulated in the interest of health and safety of the
society. This limitation is inherent in the scheme of the Act itself.
D
-¥ Of course no comprehensive definition can be given to the word
poison. Under this term would fall anything calculated to destroy life. Sub-
stances harmless in themselves might become poison by the time or man-
ner of their administration. Nothing is a poison unless regard be had to its
administration. A substance may be a deadly poison or a valuable medicine
according to how and how much is taken. If the resultant effect of ad- E
ministering into the system produces a violent, morbid or fatal changes or
which destroys living tissues, the substance can be safely called poison.
----..J. Section 4 of the Act impliedly sets out certain guidelines when the State
can notify a substance as poison. It states that the State Government may
by rule regulate the possession of any specified poison in any local area in
which the use of such -poison for the purpose of committing murder or
F
miSchief by poisoning cattle appears to it to be of such frequent occurrence
as to render restriction on the possession thereof desirable. Any substance
which is used- for purposes mentioned therein can definitely be declared as
poison. That is what the Government have done in this case. It has become
a notorious fact, which we can even take judicial notice of, that the sub- G
----y stance known as 'thinner' as it is or mixing with some other substances are
taJcen as intoxicating spirits endangering the life. In many cases deaths have
- also occurred due to drinking such substance. If the Government thought
i,n the circumstances that the possession or sale of the same is to be regu-
lated it could not be said that they have no power to regulate. Section 2
H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A also enables the Government by Rule to regulate the possession for sale
and the sale of the specifj.ed poison. It is in exercise of this power Rule 13
was amended by substituting the old Rule by the following Rule:

"13 (1) All poisons kept for sale by any licence holder under
these rules (except those kept by a chemist, druggist or com-
B pounper for the purchase of dispensing or compounding in
compliance with the prescription of medical or veterinary
practitioner) shall be kept in a box, almirah, room or building
(according to the quantity maintained), which shall be secured -~
by lock and key and in which no substance shall be placed I-
other than poisons, possessed in accordance with a licence
c granted under the Act, and each poison shall .be kept within
such box, almirah, room or building in a separate closed recep-
tacle of glass, metal or earthenware. Every such box, almirah,
room or building and every receptacle shall be marked with the ·
word 'poison' in red· characters both English and vernacular
and in the case of receptacles containing separate 'poison' with
D the name of such 'poison'.
"f-
Provided that above rule shall not apply to 'poison' mentioned
in Clause (x) of Rule 2.

(ii) All 'poisons' mentioned in clause (x) of rule 2 shall be kept
E in a room or building (according to quantity maintained) which
shall be secured by lock and key in a separate receptacle of
glass, metal and earthenware etc. Every such room building
and every such receptacle shall be marked with the word ~-
'poison' in red character both English and vernacular, with the
name of the 'poison'."
F
We are not impressed with the argument that any requirement in this
Rule is unreasonable or offends the petitioners' right to carry on any trade
or business. The nature of trade in poison is such that nobody can be
considered to have an absolute right to carry on the same. It is a business
which can be termed even as inherently dangerous to health and safety of
G society in view of the rampant misuse and sale to the poor, weak and
y
helpless· as an intoxicant. A law in such circumstance .can regulate the
trade. This position is well settled and it would be pedantic to cite all the
authorities of this Court on this point. It is also not necessary that the same
substance should be declared as poison for the entire country. The
notification and its application to any area would depend on the necessity
H
GOODWllL INDUSI'RY v., U. 0. I. [RAMASWAMI, J.) 225

to declare the substance as poison on the particular facts and .situation A
prevailing in that area and the need to regulate the possession and' sale in
that area. No question of discrimination can arise in such Circumstances.

We are of opinion that the provisions of neither Section 2 nor 5 nor
the impugned notification are hit by any co~titutional limitation. The writ
petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. Rul~ nisi is discharged. No B
order as to costs: · ·

V.P.R. Petition dismissed.

--1