From Betel Nuts to Stray Dogs — Supreme Court’s Tryst with Trivial
Image credit X.com
The sublime often sits alongside the supremely mundane as Supreme Court ventures into Executive lethargy
By P SESH KUMAR
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 12, 2025 — India’s Supreme Court, the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights, has repeatedly found itself spending precious judicial time on what, at first glance, look like matters for tax clerks, municipal commissioners, or GST inspectors. From ruling on whether cutting and sweetening betel nuts amounts to “manufacture,” to deciding if potato chips are “processed vegetables,” to navigating the caramel–salted–loose popcorn GST labyrinth, the Court has been a reluctant referee in classification wars.
Add to this the Court’s deep dives into executive domains—ordering the removal of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, micromanaging Delhi’s pollution control, and issuing nationwide mental health guidelines for NEET aspirants—and you have a docket where the sublime often sits alongside the supremely mundane.
The Betel Nut Beginning – Drawing the Line Between Processing and Manufacture
It started innocently enough. In Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. CCE (2007), the Supreme Court was asked whether crushing betel nuts, mixing in sweeteners and flavours, and packing them created a new “manufactured” product liable to excise duty. The Court said no—the essential character of the betel nut remained.
This logic repeated in Excellent Betelnut Products (2015), again holding that the processing did not create a “new and distinct” marketable product. These rulings leaned on the classic test from Delhi Cloth & General Mills (1963): unless a process results in a new and distinct commodity known to the market, it isn’t manufacture.
Potato Chips – The Vegetable Debate
While the Supreme Court never ruled directly on potato chips under excise, High Courts did the heavy lifting. PepsiCo India argued (successfully in several states) that frying, salting, and flavouring potatoes didn’t change their essential character—they remained “vegetables in processed form” under VAT laws, attracting only 4–5% tax instead of the higher snack rate. State tax departments bristled, but the “processed vegetable” doctrine survived in most jurisdictions.
Popcorn – When GST Made It Pop
If excise duty disputes were about “manufacture vs. processing,” GST ushered in a new game: micro-classification. Under GST’s HSN-based system, the question wasn’t “is it manufactured?” but “which slab does it fit?”
Popcorn became a tax policy farce. In December 2024, the GST Council clarified:
- Loose/unbranded salted popcorn: 5%
- Branded/packaged salted popcorn: 12%
- Caramel or sweetened popcorn: 18%
The rationale? Salted popcorn was a savoury snack; caramel popcorn was “sugar confectionery.” Cinema owners faced the absurdity of charging different rates on the same corn depending on the topping. Economists derided it as “bureaucrat’s delight, citizen’s nightmare,” while memes of popcorn tubs stamped “GST Inside” went viral.
Excise Duty vs. GST – Same Product, New Confusion
| Product | Excise Duty (Pre-July 2017) | GST (Post-July 2017) |
| Potato Chips | ~14% (Chapter 20), but often fought down to 4–5% VAT as “processed vegetable” | 12% if branded/packaged; 5% if loose |
| Popcorn | ~14% for packaged; loose often exempt under SSI | 5% loose; 12% salted/branded; 18% caramel/sweetened |
| Classification Focus | Manufacture vs. processing test (DCM, Crane Betelnut) | Branding, packaging, flavour—affects slab rate |
| Litigation Nature | Mostly whether excise applies at all | Mostly which GST rate applies |
When the Court Crosses into the Executive’s Lane
While the classification cases consume court time with forensic food taxonomy, other recent interventions have taken the judiciary deep into policy implementation:
- Stray Dog Menace (2025) – SC ordered removal of all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets within eight weeks, set up shelters, and mandated helplines.
- Delhi Pollution – SC declared a pollution-free environment part of Article 21 rights, monitored real-time air quality, and directed labor allowances during construction bans.
- NEET Aspirant Suicides – SC, after a student suicide, ordered a CBI probe and issued 15 binding nationwide guidelines for mental health support in educational institutions.
The Bigger Picture
The Supreme Court’s docket often reads like an eclectic buffet—fundamental rights cases sitting alongside disputes over whether a product is a “processed vegetable” or a “sugar confectionery.” The stakes in tax cases are real—billions of rupees in revenue hinge on classification—but the optics are tricky.
The Court’s finite bandwidth is stretched between defending democracy’s core and deciding whether caramel popcorn is a luxury.
The transition from excise duty to GST has not eliminated classification disputes; it has merely changed their flavour—literally in the case of popcorn. And when such disputes rise to the highest court, they compete for time with cases of genuine constitutional urgency.
Judicial Activism amid Legislative Gaps
In an ideal system, technical classification issues—whether betel nuts are “manufactured,” potato chips are “processed vegetables,” or popcorn deserves 5%, 12%, or 18% GST—would be resolved swiftly by expert tax tribunals, not after years of appeals to the Supreme Court. But until legislative clarity and administrative competence close the gap, the Court will keep being summoned to rule on the taste and texture of taxation. And as long as the executive leaves policy vacuums in areas like urban animal control, pollution management, and student mental health, the judiciary will keep stepping in—sometimes to applause, sometimes to criticism, always at the expense of the constitutional heavy lifting that only it can do.
(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)
Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn
About The Author
