Upholding Public Health over Corporate claims - distinct powers of a regulatory body and the Judiciary

The clear differentiation of power of a Regulatory body and Judiciary came to the fore with the recent development where the FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) had restricted the use of the term "ORS" to only those products that meet the WHO standards. 

ORS (Oral rehydration solutions) contains a mixture of water, glucose and essential salts and are used mainly for children to prevent dehydration caused by diarrhea. However, many products labelled ORS, contained high-sugar flavored drinks or beverages that did not meet the WHO standards and posed serious health hazards. The FSSAI also alleged that some companies tried to label their products with misleading ads with disclaimers and using words like "ORS substitutes", which the consumers do not read or comprehend at all.

In response to a court case launched by a Hyderabad-based doctor, several companies in the space challenged the order in the Delhi High Court to allow selling of their existing stocks. Initially the Court granted a temporary stay on the FSSAI order. But now it has upheld FSSAI's embargo against the Companies, mentioning the products had been flagged as a "health hazard," and reiterating that “public health considerations is of paramount.” The Court did mention though, that the Companies can approach the FSSAI regarding how to ensure sales of their existing stocks. 

This legal sequence highlights the quasi-judicial power of a Statutory body (FSSAI) to "issue protective orders" and the judicial power of the courts to "review, confirm, and enforce those orders" based on the highest public interest. 

In this case, the Delhi High Court has maintained the scope of the legal ambit of the FSSAI.

Reference : 

a.   FSSAI bans sale of misleading ORS products, issues strict warning - Health News | The Financial Express

b.   Public Health vs Profit: Delhi High Court's Stay on "ORS" Ban Sparks Debate

c.    As FSSAI upholds ban on ORS-branded products, Delhi High Court refuses to interfere, notes ‘public health risk’