Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, April 29, 2024

Consider Making Milk Adulteration Punishable With Life: SC

Posted in: Supreme Court
Wed, Oct 6, 21, 19:43, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5914
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother

At the very outset let me begin by pointing out that I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother has changed how many persons as the quality of milk supplied was just not up to the mark! Day in and day out we keep hearing the same thing in every household especially in cities and towns where very few people keep cow or other animal and therefore don't require any milk! It is most astonishing to see that those indulging in milk adulteration have just no fear of any law or going to jail!

To put things in perspective, this is mainly because very few of us actually complaint to police of milk adulteration. The second major reason is that milk adulteration is taken very lightly in our country and there is no strict punishment inserted in our penal laws to contain this grave menace. This has to end if the serious menace of milk adulteration is to be effectively checked in our country. It goes without saying that only then can we expect to get some respite.

This alone explains why the Supreme Court very rightly on August 5, 2016 while expressing concern over alarming level of milk adulteration in the country favoured stringent punishment for this offence and asked the Centre to consider amending the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSAI) to make milk adulteration a criminal offence punishable with life imprisonment. Right now, the adulteration of food product is a crime under Section 272 of the IPC but it is most pathetic to note that it entails a maximum punishment of six months only. It can also be compounded by way of a fine of Rs 1000.

While craving for the extreme indulgence of my esteemed readers, it must be gainfully mentioned here that a Bench of Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice TS Thakur and also comprising Justices R Banumathi and UU Lalit said notably that there was an urgent need to tackle the menace of growing sale of adulterated and synthetic milk in different parts of the country. Centre must act fast on this. Showing zero tolerance to adulteration of milk and milk products, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court made scathing observation when it said that:
In India, where traditionally infants and children are fed milk, its adulteration is a concern and stringent measures need to be taken to combat it.

It is also worth mentioning here that the Bench gave the commendable direction after perusing various expert reports revealing that adulteration of milk with chemicals such as baking soda caused several life threatening diseases, including pneumonia and diarrhea. It can also lead to skin surgeries. Centre must comply with these directions at the earliest. For the Centre, the Supreme Court's intervention can come in handy in cracking the whip on people indulging in wrongdoing with a comprehensive Bill aimed exclusively for this purpose only.

Needless to say, milk adulteration can adversely affect the growth of future generations since it is the staple diet of children and infants. It is a no-brainer that this is what has compelled the Supreme Court which is the highest court of the land to recommend such a severe punishment of making milk adulteration punishable with life. This is in fact long overdue and Centre must therefore waste no time in complying with what Supreme Court has advised it.

It ought to be mentioned here that the Bench of Supreme Court which ordered this landmark verdict pointed out that states of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha had already amended the law making adulteration punishable up to life imprisonment. The Bench asked Centre and other States to adopt similar rules and disposed a 2012 petition seeking deterrent punishment against the offenders. Centre and other States must waste no time in doing what the Supreme Court has asked them to do.

To say the least, it must be appreciated here that the Centre had sought to act tough against people involved in food adulteration by enacting the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, which stipulates a heavy fine of up to Rs 10 lakh. But this alone is also not enough. Life imprisonment must be imposed as recommended by Apex Court so that a loud and clear message goes out to all offenders that they would have to cool the rest of their lives in jail if they committed the offence of milk adulteration.

Be it known, it was a PIL that was filed by one Swami Achyutanand Tirth who demanded life term for milk adulteration. In fact, I would go a step further and say that food adulteration too must be severely punished so that no one can play with the health of any other person. Those who still dare to do so must pay for it by spending the rest of their lives in jail so that it acts as an effective deterrent to others from doing so similarly.

It is also worth mentioning here that the petition had cited a report titled National Survey on Adulteration of Milk which was based on results of random milk samples lifted from various parts of the country. The results showed the presence of hazardous chemicals, caustic soda and detergents in some samples. This is simply inexcusable. The court noted with concern, Prolonged consumption of milk adulterated with chemicals may affect vital body organs and may pose a health risk to infants, children and also adults.

A Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) report of 2011 was quoted in the petition to state that 68.4% of fresh milk was adulterated as was 33% of packaged milk. There was 100% adulteration in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, West Bengal, Mizoram, Jharkhand and Daman and Diu.` In Uttarakhand and UP, 88% of milk samples were found adulterated. The Bench of Apex Court ordered that:
It is also desirable that Union of India revisits the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, to revise the punishment for adulteration making it more deterrent in cases where the adulterant can have an adverse impact on health.

As we see, while proposing a set of guidelines, the Bench asked States and the Centre to generate awareness and increase vigilance over addition of chemicals and pesticides to milk and milk products by forming teams for surprise checks and setting up dedicated laboratories for testing presence of adulterants. In addition, the States were asked to identify high risk areas (where petty food manufacturers are present) and occasions (particularly around festivals) when there is higher risk for ingesting adulterated milk and milk products.

All said and done, the Supreme Court's order has come timely which is in the interest of people's health and well-being. There can be no two opinions that adulteration of milk and food amounts to poisoning people slowly so that undue profit is made at the expense of customer and his/her family.

There has to be zero tolerance for it and life imprisonment is the appropriate punishment as per this commendable, cogent, composed and convincing judgment of the Supreme Court. Centre and States must consider it at the earliest and make the necessary law providing for life imprisonment for milk and food adulteration so that it acts as an effective deterrent to potential offenders to desist from indulging in the nefarious activity of adulteration of milk and food products. Let us hope that the proposed increase in punishment for milk adulteration is extended to other food items also as well as to bottled water, tea, coffee and spices. It brooks no more delay.

Written By: Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A-82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, UP

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top