On January 20, a petition seeking compliance with Clause 7(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Fortification of Foods) Regulations, 2018 was heard by the Supreme Court's division bench, which was chaired by Justices S.K. Kaul and A.S. Oka. The petition was filed for the benefit of those (including sickle cell and thalassemia patients) for whom consumption of the fortified rice is contraindicated.

The judges asked the petitioner if they had sought the relevant authorities to raise the issue that the pertinent rules are not being followed when the matter was brought up on Friday. 

Advocate Sh. Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, answered in the affirmative. He claimed that the arguments from November 2020 forward have been made. 

The Bench requested that Mr. Bhushan record the representations.

According to Justice Kaul, the proper strategy for handling the situation would be for the Court to order the relevant parties to take the petitioner's arguments into consideration and give their responses. He believed that because the petition's subject required specialised knowledge, the responsible authority's decision about the representation would be advantageous to the Bench as and when it considered the petition. 

According to the petition, programmes for fortifying rice should adhere to the right to informed consent concept, which is a key component of the right to privacy protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The World Health Organization further highlights the obligation of the government to inform people about such fortification. Additionally, the petition makes the claim that a person's physical integrity. The argument further asserts that a person's bodily integrity cannot be violated without that person's express, informed permission. 

The Operational Guidelines of the Pilot Scheme fortification of Rice and its Distribution under Public Distribution and the labeling requirements under the Food Safety and Standard Regulations appear to have not been followed, based on fact-finding inspections made by a few organisations.

Another issue addressed in the petition is the lack of a substitute for fortified rice in the PDS (Public Distribution System), ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services), and MDMs (Mid Day Meals) public distribution programmes for persons who should not take fortified rice. It claims that forcing recipients to choose not to participate in these programmes because they cannot eat enriched rice would violate their statutory rights.

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

Appearance of the advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR
Ms. Ria Yadav, Adv.