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.
FSSAI bans sale of misleading ORS products, issues strict
warning - Health News | The Financial Express
Public Health vs Profit: Delhi High
Court's Stay on "ORS" Ban Sparks Debate
As FSSAI upholds ban on ORS-branded
products, Delhi High Court refuses to interfere, notes ‘public health risk’
