Madras High Court today stayed certain provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Rule 2011 on a petition which contended that it offered a 'red carpet welcome' to multinational companies and endangered the existence of local merchants.
Granting the stay, Justice K.Venkataraman also recorded the submission made by central government counsel D.Nallathambi that he was taking notice on behalf of the Union Health and Family Welfare Secretary.
The stay related to provisions including sec 3(adulterant) and 3(1)(Misbrand).
Petitioner, Nellai Merchants Association Secretary M Panneerselvam, contended that the the FSS Act was 'draconian' in nature as the conditions laid down under it were virtually impossible to implement and would result in endangering the existence of the local merchants.
"It offered red carpet welcome to multi-national companies who had high tech production capacity, huge investment and indulge in unethical competition," he submitted.
Also, no distinction was made between adulterated, sub-standard and mis-branded food items under the 14 provisions of the act. Misbranded food product cannot be said to be adulterated and vice versa.
He wondered how the traders were liable to be punished for sub-standard food product for which only the manufacturer was responsible.
Under FSS rules, there were a lot of foods for which no standards had been prescribed. Similarly the manufacturers had been asked to provide various details with respect to ingredients. If food substance is tested in two different labs, using different methods,the results would be different, and the manufacturers would be punished for no fault of them.
The petitioner said such provisions were "unconstitutional, arbitrary, and illegal" and prayed that the court should declare them illegal.
He also sought interim injunction to such provisions relating to misbranding and nutritional information among others.
Granting the stay, Justice K.Venkataraman also recorded the submission made by central government counsel D.Nallathambi that he was taking notice on behalf of the Union Health and Family Welfare Secretary.
The stay related to provisions including sec 3(adulterant) and 3(1)(Misbrand).
Petitioner, Nellai Merchants Association Secretary M Panneerselvam, contended that the the FSS Act was 'draconian' in nature as the conditions laid down under it were virtually impossible to implement and would result in endangering the existence of the local merchants.
"It offered red carpet welcome to multi-national companies who had high tech production capacity, huge investment and indulge in unethical competition," he submitted.
Also, no distinction was made between adulterated, sub-standard and mis-branded food items under the 14 provisions of the act. Misbranded food product cannot be said to be adulterated and vice versa.
He wondered how the traders were liable to be punished for sub-standard food product for which only the manufacturer was responsible.
Under FSS rules, there were a lot of foods for which no standards had been prescribed. Similarly the manufacturers had been asked to provide various details with respect to ingredients. If food substance is tested in two different labs, using different methods,the results would be different, and the manufacturers would be punished for no fault of them.
The petitioner said such provisions were "unconstitutional, arbitrary, and illegal" and prayed that the court should declare them illegal.
He also sought interim injunction to such provisions relating to misbranding and nutritional information among others.
No comments:
Post a Comment