A compilation of PIL cases in Bangladesh

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1999
Home 9 PIL Cases 9 Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1999
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1043 of 1999

Date of filing: 1999/03/23


1.Bangladesh Legal Aid and Service Trust (BLAST);

2. General Secretary, Consumers Association of Bangladesh


1. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

2. Secretary, Ministry of Industries

3. Secretary, National Salt Committee

4. Director General, Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution

5. Chairman, Bangladesh Small and Cottage Industries Corporation

6. Sundarban Natural Iodised Salt, Sundarban Salt Industries

7. Dolphin, Surabhi Salt Iodation Plant

8. Bhuiyan Salt

9. BonophoolLobon, Shama Salt Packaging Industries

10. Urmi Refined Salt, Urmi Salt and Packaging Industries

11. Mollah Salt, Mollah Salt Industries

12. Joni Special Salt, Fahad Industries


On undertaking laboratory tests which revealed that salt produced by eight manufacturers of iodized salt did not contain the required level of iodine as stipulated under law, and given that lack of adequate iodine was known to affect the normal physical and mental growth of children by causing Iodine Deficiency Diseases, BLAST filed a writ petition challenging the inaction and failure of the authorities to ensure compliance with the Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994.


Date: 14/12/2004


The High Court directed the Ministry of Health and related bodies to require licensed salt manufacturers to include the minimum iodine content in salt, to prevent unregistered manufacturers from producing, marketing and selling salt for human consumption, to submit a list of registered manufacturers and also to collect samples of edible salt and submit an analysis report to the Registrar of Supreme Court twice a year.


Mr. Justice Shah Abu NayeemMuminur Rahman

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury


25 BLD (2005) 83

Area of law



Iodized Salt Case

Relevant statute

Iodine Deficiency Disease Prevention Act, 1989 and Rules, 1994

Date: 25/03/1999


Rule Nisi was issued upon the respondent nos 1 to 5 to show cause as to why they should not be directed (a) to take necessary steps and action to ensure that all licenced manufacturers of salt do produce pack and sell salt with iodine content confirming with quality and standard as specified in the iodine diseases prevention Act, 1989; b) to revoke licences and take action against respondnet no 6-12 and other manufacturers of iodized salt, those failed to comply with the provisions, as enumerated in the said, and c) to identify the unlicenced and take manufacturers of edible salt and to take action against those manufacturers as per provisions of the Act.

Database Last Updated on: 2017-02-12 15:26:45