Frivolous PILs: Delhi High Court dismisses toy manufacturers' pleas
The division bench dismissed the PILs filed by toy manufacturers seeking permission to sell substandard toys imported before 2021.
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by toy manufacturers. Court held the pleas 'frivolous' PILs which had been filed to avoid complying with the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020.
Court said that the 2020 Order was issued to ensure that children under the age of 14 are not exposed to substandard goods/goods containing toxic material/toys containing toxic material.
A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was hearing two PILs filed by toy manufacturers claiming that they should be allowed to sell toys imported from manufacturers before 2021 and that the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020 Order should not apply to them.
Under a notification dated February 25, 2020, issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, the toy manufacturers were not able to sell their toys. The notification mandates that the toys imported by the importer should conform to the standards laid down under BIS (Conformity Regulations), 2018, and the toys so imported should qualify the parameters laid down under the quality control orders which had come into force with effect from September 1, 2020.
The petitioners submitted that the imported toys were found to be sub-standard, and the Quality Council of India (QCI) submitted a detailed and exhaustive report on the market's toys. Thereafter, the foreign trade policy for importing toys was tightened through a revised notification of December 2019, and after consultation with stakeholders, a notification was issued in February 2020, and all stakeholders were given six months to prepare, with the date of implementation set for September 1, 2020.
On the contrary, the counsel for respondents submitted that the action was taken to promote the domestic industry as part of the Nation Action Plan for Toys and to ensure that substandard toys were not imported because they contained toxic materials.
Court noted that the notification was issued by the GOI in the exercise of powers conferred under the BIS Act making it mandatory for the toys manufacturer to obtain a registration certificate under the said Act, and the 2018 Regulations were to ensure that sub-standard toys with toxic substances were not sold in the market. It also noted that given the large number of toys imported into the country, the Government of India granted the industry six months to implement the notification.
The bench opined that the documents on record revealed that the impugned notification issued by the GOI was, in fact, in the greater public interest, and that the current writ petition was not a PIL but rather 'personal interest litigation' of certain toy manufacturers.
“Under the garb of PIL, the toy manufacturers wanted to import sub-standard toys in the country, and by no stretch of the imagination they could be permitted to violate the norms fixed by the Government of India under the
Court further noted that enough time was given to all manufacturers/importers to comply with the
Court relied on Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) wherein the Supreme Court held that:
“The misuse of public interest litigation was a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this Court and the High Courts are flooded with litigations and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes”.
Moreover, the court opined that the present PILs were filed at the behest of traders of toys/ manufacturers of toys, who wanted to avoid compliance with Order 2020.
Furthermore, the court opined that Order 2020 which was formulated under Section 16(1) and (2) read with Section 17 and Section 25(3) of the BIS Act, 2016 prima facie confers power upon the Central Government to issue direction as may be necessary to protect the interest of consumers and various other stakeholders.
The court also noted that Order 2020 was issued to ensure that consumers who are children under the age of 14 are not exposed to substandard goods/toxic materials/toxic toys.
Therefore, while noting that the PILs were ‘frivolous’, the bench said “The present PILs are nothing but frivolous PILs. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Order 2020… the present Petitions are nothing but personal interest litigations filed at the behest of traders of toys/ manufacturers of toys, who want to avoid compliance of the Order 2020 dated 25.02.2020.”
Case Title: Forever Toy Traders Association v. UOI & Ors ( another connect matter)
Statue: The BIS Act, 2016; BIS (Conformity Regulations), 2018 and The