Swami Achyutanand Tirth and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

CITATION AIR 2016 SC 3626

DATE OF JUDGEMENT 5 August,2016
COURT SUPREME COURT
APPELLANT Swami Achyutanand Tirth
RESPONDENT Union of India
BENCH T.S. Thakur, R. Banumathi, Uday
Umesh Lalit

INTRODUCTION-
This landmark case, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2016, addressed the crucial issue
of food safety and the use of additives and artificial flavors in food products. The petitioners, led
by Swami Achyutanand, challenged the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 2011,
specifically questioning the permissibility of certain additives and flavors deemed detrimental to
health. They argued that these substances violated their fundamental right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

 In the 2016 case of Swami Achyutanand & Ors. v. Union of India, the petitioners
challenged the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules, 2011, claiming that the
permitted use of certain additives and artificial flavors violated their right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
 They argued that these substances were harmful to health and lacked sufficient scientific
evidence to support their safety.
 The government defended the PFA Rules, highlighting their reliance on scientific
evidence and international standards. They also emphasized the economic benefits of
these additives and the potential adverse impact on the food industry from stricter
regulations.
 While upholding the overall framework of the PFA Rules, the Supreme Court imposed
restrictions on certain additives and flavors, particularly those with insufficient scientific
backing or potential health risks.

ISSUES RAISED-
The two main issues raised in the case of Swami Achyutanand & Ors. v. Union of India (2016)
were:

1. Harmfulness of certain additives and artificial flavors: This challenged the safety of specific
ingredients allowed under the PFA Rules, questioning their potential health risks and lack of
sufficient scientific evidence to support their usage.

2. Violation of the right to life: This argued that the government's approval of potentially harmful
substances violated the citizens' fundamental right to safe and healthy food, a crucial aspect of
Article 21 of the Constitution.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-
1. Use of Harmful Additives and Flavors: The appellants argued that the PFA Rules allowed the
use of harmful additives and artificial flavors, specifically mentioning examples like artificial
sweeteners, preservatives, coloring agents, and flavoring agents. They claimed that these
substances lacked sufficient scientific evidence to support their long-term safety and posed
potential health risks to consumers.

2. Violation of Right to Life: The appellants asserted that the government, by permitting the use
of potentially harmful substances in food, violated their fundamental right to life under Article
21 of the Constitution. They argued that the right to life encompasses the right to safe and
healthy food, a crucial aspect of human well-being.

3. Lack of Transparency and Disclosure: The appellants criticized the lack of transparency and
disclosure in the use of additives and flavors in food products. They argued that consumers were
unaware of what they were consuming and lacked the necessary information to make informed
choices.

4. Inadequate Scientific Evaluation: The appellants questioned the adequacy of the scientific
evaluation conducted before permitting the use of additives and flavors. They demanded rigorous
and independent scientific testing to ensure the safety of such substances before their inclusion in
food products.

5. Need for Stricter Regulations: The appellants urged the government to implement stricter
regulations and enforcement mechanisms to prevent the use of harmful additives and flavors in
food. They argued for stricter penalties for offenders and increased vigilance from the
government to guarantee food safety.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
1. Validity of PFA Rules: The government defended the validity of the PFA Rules, 2011, arguing
that they were based on scientific evidence and established international standards. They
highlighted the rigorous scientific evaluation process involved in determining the safety of
additives and flavors before their approval.

2. Economic Considerations: The government acknowledged the importance of food safety but
also emphasized the need to balance it with economic considerations. They argued that stricter
regulations could negatively impact food production, industry profitability, and potentially lead
to increased food prices

3. Benefits of Additives and Flavors: The government highlighted the benefits of using additives
and flavors in food products, including increased shelf life, improved taste, and affordability.
They argued that these substances play a crucial role in providing safe and accessible food to a
large population.

4. Existing Regulations and Enforcement: The government defended the existing regulations
and enforcement mechanisms in place to prevent food adulteration. They emphasized their
ongoing efforts to improve the enforcement system and increase vigilance against food safety
violations.

JUDGEMENT-
In the case of Swami Achyutanand & Ors. v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court of India
delivered a nuanced judgment balancing food safety concerns with economic realities. While
upholding the overall framework of the PFA Rules, 2011, the Court imposed specific restrictions
on certain additives and flavors lacking sufficient scientific backing or posing potential health
risks. It emphasized the importance of rigorous scientific evaluation, transparent labeling, and
stricter enforcement mechanisms. The Court further directed the government to ensure the use of
only safe additives, regularly update the PFA Rules based on scientific evidence, and undertake
public awareness campaigns to promote informed food choices. This landmark judgment has
significantly impacted food safety regulations in India, empowering consumers and encouraging
ongoing research to ensure the availability of safe and healthy food for all citizens.

CONCLUSION-
The Swami Achyutanand case marked a significant milestone in food safety regulations in India.
It established a stronger legal framework for the regulation of food additives and
flavors,emphasized the paramount importance of scientific evidence in determining the safety of
food ingredients, empowered consumers by ensuring transparency and disclosure of information
on food labels and highlighted the responsibility of the government to protect public health by
ensuring safe and healthy food for all citizens.

REFERENCES-
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75522969/

http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/433835/judgement-of-the-supreme-court-of-
india-regarding-growing-sales-of-adulterated-and-synthetic-milk-in-india-05082016/