KATHMANDU, July 30: A long-dormant law aimed at regulating iodized salt is once again at the center of a legal tug-of-war, as the Supreme Court (SC) issued an interim order on July 14, halting its implementation just days before it was scheduled to take effect.
The Iodized Salt Act 2055 (1998), which had been gathering dust for over two decades, was finally set to be enforced from July 16 after being published in the Nepal Gazette. But the Supreme Court intervened, citing concerns over public health, preparedness, and potential disruption in the supply and sale of iodized salt—an essential dietary item directly linked to preventing iodine deficiency disorders.
Now, the Ministry of Health and Population is preparing a written explanation to justify why the law should move forward. “We will send our response before the court’s final verdict. We believe the court will issue a favorable decision,” said Gopi Krishna Regmi, legal officer at the Ministry.
The case traces back to a petition filed about four months ago by the Consumers’ Forum, urging early implementation of the Act. Responding to that, the Supreme Court had previously directed the government to enforce it—prompting the Health Ministry to swing into action, draft regulations, and gear up for implementation.
“We had even prepared a draft of the regulation,” said Lila Bikram Thapa, Chief of the Nutrition Section under the Family Welfare Division. But the July 14 order from Justices Til Prasad Shrestha and Mahesh Sharma Paudel put the brakes on everything. The bench ruled, “Do not enforce the Iodized Salt Act 2055 from July 16,” citing the risk of unintended consequences.
The apex court also noted that while the Act was being implemented years after its passage, further delay would not cause irreversible harm. Regmi, however, disagrees. He argues that even though the implementation is overdue, its necessity remains strong. “This law is essential to improve the quality and regulation of iodized salt. The previous system under the Industry Ministry and general laws is no longer sufficient,” he said.
Historically, the Salt Trading Corporation managed salt production and distribution under the Industry Ministry's legal framework. But officials argue that the growing health relevance of iodized salt calls for dedicated legislation under the Health Ministry's purview.
With iodized salt receiving increased attention due to its public health importance, both Thapa and Regmi insist that a specialized law is vital—not just for regulation but also for enabling further research and monitoring.
Thapa emphasized that weaknesses flagged in the SC’s order can only be addressed after the law is in effect. “This is a matter of public health. Delays weren't intentional. We need the law to move forward so we can make improvements through amendments,” he said.
For now, the fate of the Iodized Salt Act remains uncertain, with the final verdict from the Supreme Court still pending. In the meantime, the Health Ministry is racing against time to defend its position.