Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim

Right to Life Includes Safe and Healthy Food: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Action on Food Adulteration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court emphasizes immediate implementation of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, and robust public awareness campaigns.

The Rajasthan High Court, under the aegis of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has initiated a suo motu action to tackle the pressing issue of food adulteration. Highlighting the severe health risks posed by adulterated food, the court issued interim directions to ensure the effective implementation of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. The court underscored the constitutional mandate to provide safe and healthy food, drawing on Articles 21 and 47 of the Indian Constitution.

The case, titled "Suo Moto: In Re: Public Health – Protect the Present and Safeguard the Future from Food Adulteration," addresses the alarming rise in food adulteration, a practice that threatens public health. Various reports and studies have shown a significant increase in food adulteration, leading to serious health issues, including cancer and organ failure. The court took cognizance of this issue, emphasizing the need for immediate and robust action from both Central and State Governments.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized the constitutional right to life, which inherently includes the right to safe and healthy food. The court highlighted the responsibilities outlined in Article 21 and Article 47 of the Constitution, mandating the state to ensure public health and safety.

The judgment noted the critical role of medical evidence in corroborating the severe health impacts of adulterated food. The court referred to multiple studies and reports indicating a rise in cancer and other life-threatening diseases linked to food adulteration.

The court scrutinized the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, noting that while it provides a comprehensive framework for food safety regulation, its implementation remains inadequate, especially in unorganized sectors. "The laws are descriptive, but the implementation is still at its beginning stage," the judgment stated, urging both Central and State Governments to enhance enforcement and infrastructure.

The court's legal reasoning was rooted in the constitutional mandate to protect public health. The judgment referenced several landmark cases, including Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI and P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala, to underline the judiciary's role in upholding citizens' fundamental rights. The court issued detailed interim directions to ensure stringent enforcement of food safety regulations and increase public awareness.

Justice Dhand remarked, "Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Fundamental Right to Life includes safe and healthy food. The adulteration of food affects this fundamental right, and it is the duty of the state to ensure public health and safety."

The Rajasthan High Court's proactive stance on food adulteration marks a significant step towards safeguarding public health. By emphasizing the constitutional right to safe and healthy food, the judgment sets a precedent for future cases and underscores the need for rigorous implementation of food safety laws. The interim directions issued by the court aim to enhance food safety monitoring, improve testing infrastructure, and raise public awareness, thereby laying the groundwork for a healthier future.

 

Date of Decision: July 1, 2024

Suo Moto: In Re: Public Health – Protect the Present and Safeguard the Future from Food Adulteration VS Union of India and Others

Latest Legal News