Skip to main content

Fundamental rights includes Right to get pure food, says Supreme Court

The right to life and human dignity under art 21 of the Constitution also incorporates the right to have food articles and beverages which are free from harmful residues such as pesticides and insecticides, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The apex court said that food articles which are harmful and injurious to public health had the potential of striking at the fundamental right to life guaranteed by the Constitution and it was the government’s responsibility to take steps for protection of life and health.A bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and DipakMisra directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to “gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the states and union territories and conduct periodical inspection and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable markets.”

In the words of the apex court, “We may emphasise that any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A paramount duty is cast on the States and its authorities to achieve an appropriate level of protection to human life and health…”

The ruling came while disposing of the petition by an NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, seeking the setting up of an ‘independent expert/technical committee to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on the health of the children’.

The bench disposed of the PIL seeking to set up an independent technical panel to evaluate the harmful effects of soft drinks on human health, particularly on children, saying the Food Supply and Standards (FSS) Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act along with their rules and regulations were sufficient to deal with the grievances.The apex court, in its verdict, referred to various regulatory provisions of the FSS and PFA Acts and said they be “interpreted and applied in the light of the Constitutional Principles” to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/fundamental-rights-includes-right-to-get-pure-food-says-supreme-court/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more