MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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