Contaminated milk can have serious, irreversible impact on children’s health: HC

Srinagar, May 22: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has declined to quash criminal proceedings against representatives of a Gujarat-based milk producers’ cooperative over an allegedly unsafe milk sample, observing that contaminated milk products can have “serious and irreversible” consequences on human health, particularly children.

In response to a plea by representatives of M/s Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, Gujarat, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal held that the public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests.

“The present case relates to the safety of milk, which is consumed every day by children, infants, pregnant women, elderly persons, patients and general public,” the court said, while rejecting the business unit’s plea challenging a complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Shopian, and the cognizance order dated October 7, 2021.

The court noted that the contaminated milk product has the potential to seriously affect human health and may cause long-term and irreversible consequences, particularly upon children whose physical growth and immunity depend upon safe and nutritious food. “Therefore, issues concerning food safety cannot be treated lightly or decided merely on technical considerations.”

The Food Safety and Standards Act(FSSA), 2006 was enacted to ensure safe and wholesome food for human consumption and to protect the public from unsafe food articles, the court said. 

The court, in keeping with the observations made by the supreme court, said that the maintenance and improvement of public health is not merely an administrative concern but a constitutional obligation of the highest importance.

The court observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, it cannot adopt an approach which may dilute the statutory safeguards enacted under FSSA for protection of consumers.

The contention of the petitioners was that a sample of “Homogenised Toned Milk” initially tested by the Food Analyst, Kashmir Division, had been declared of standard quality and that authorities had illegally referred the sample to a Referral Laboratory without recording reasons or granting them an opportunity of hearing.

Opposing the plea, Hakim Aman Ali, Dy AG contended that Food Analyst, Kashmir Division decided to send the second part of the sample to Referral Laboratory for which no opportunity of being heard was required to be given to the petitioner under FSSA.  

However, the court held that the designated officer had acted strictly in accordance with Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 by recording reasons in writing before forwarding the second part of the sample to the Referral Laboratory at National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujarat.

The court noted that the Designated Officer had found that several crucial parameters, including antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals, had not been examined in the initial analysis and, therefore, referred the sample for comprehensive scientific testing.

Underscoring that the statutory framework empowers authorities to ensure complete scientific scrutiny of food products in the larger public interest, the court disagreed that a prior hearing was mandatory before referring to the sample. “Neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate such a requirement,” it said.

Moreover, the court noted that once the Referral Laboratory declared the sample unsafe under Sections 26(1) and 26(2)(i) read with Section 3(1)(zz)(xii) of FSSA, the earlier report lost significance, as the Referral Laboratory is the final scientific authority under the statutory framework.

In response to the contention that the Managing Director could not be prosecuted in view of Section 66 of the Act because another officer had been nominated for food safety, the court observed that the Managing Director, being overall in charge of the affairs of the company, could not claim blanket immunity at the threshold stage.

The High Court also vacated the interim stay that had remained in operation since April 21, 2022, saying that continuation of such protection in a matter concerning unsafe food products would seriously jeopardise public health.

The Court concluded that the material on record prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under Section 59 of the FSSA, and dismissed the petition. It directed the CJM Shopian to proceed with the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.