Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Compulsory Labelling On Fortified Rice Sacks

On the last date of hearing, a Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice A.S. Oka had asked the petitioners to file the representations made to the concerned authorities seeking redressal of their grievances. Upon perusal of the same, on Monday, the Bench noted that the representations that have been placed on record do not reflect the concerns regarding implementation of the Clause 7(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Fortification of Foods) Regulations, 2018.

Justice Oka pointed out that even though the petition deals with compliance of Clause 7(4), the provision was not categorically mentioned in any of the representations. In order to verify he asked the Counsel for the petitioner to show from the representation that such a submission was indeed made before the authorities. Noting that the Counsel for the petition was not able to point out the same from the representations, the Bench held that it was not inclined to entertain the Public Interest Litigation. It indicated that the petitioners can make appropriate representation before the concerned authorities seeking implementation of Clause 7(4).

Food fortification refers to the addition of chemical or synthetic vitamins and minerals, during processing, in the post-harvest stage. The petition submits that there is scientific evidence to demonstrate that for people suffering from certain medical conditions iron-fortified rice is contra-indicated. Under the Food Safety and Standards (Fortification of Foods) Regulations, 2018, the concerned authorities are enjoined to provide correct labelling for contra-indications. The petition argues that rice-fortification programmes ought to abide by the principle of right to informed consent, which is an integral part of right to privacy envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The World Health Organisation also emphasises on the duty of the authorities to inform individuals about such fortification. The plea further submits that an individual's bodily integrity cannot be impinged upon without their explicit informed consent.

It appears that according to fact-finding visits conducted by a couple of organisations the labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standard Regulations and the Operational Guidelines of the Pilot Scheme Fortification of Rice and its Distribution under Public Distribution were not being followed.

Another concern raised in the petition is that, there is no alternative to fortified-rice in the public distribution programs of PDS (Public Distribution System), ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services) and MDMs (Mid Day Meals) for people who are contraindicated to consume fortified rice. It submits that statutory rights of the beneficiaries would be infringed upon if they are constrained to opt out of these programmes for not being able to consume fortified rice.

[Case Title: Vandana Prasad And Anr. v UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 24/2023]