138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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