Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56983
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
LEONARD JOHN – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/24827/2022
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH), E.MOHAMMED SHAFI, C.S.MANU, ASG SRI. TEK CHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The government has a duty under Article 47 to promote public health but retains discretion over fund allocation for awareness programs.
Headnote:
Health - Public Awareness - Article 47 - Summary of Article 47's mandate for States to raise public health standards, ensuring consumer awareness of harmful products.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cinnamon farmer, sought the court's intervention to direct the respondents to take action against the sale of cassia marketed as cinnamon, arguing for public awareness regarding health risks associated with such products.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but declined to issue specific directives, noting that fund allocation is within the government's discretion while urging authorities to consider the petitioner's requests.
Issues: Whether the respondents are obligated to create public awareness regarding fake food products and if a directive can be issued to allocate funds for this purpose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while public health awareness aligns with Article 47's directive principles, specific fund allocation and project initiation remains within government jurisdiction.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed; government directed to consider petitioner's request.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2022 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
In this writ petition, petitioner has submitted that it is high time to direct the respondents to act in tune with Article 47 of the Constitution of India and to create public awareness system by constituting a body for the same with appropriate directions to monitor various products marketed in the country, the health hazards caused by the said products and also create awareness of fake and spurious materials which are sold in public as a substitute for authentic products and thereby save the life of the people.
2. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
(i) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allocate a reasonable portion 24827of their spending towards creating public awareness about fake and spurious food products sold in the market as a substitute for genuine and authentic products.
(ii) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a body to create a public awareness system to implement the directions in the directive principles of state policy under the Article 47 of the Constitution of India .
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is having large plantation of Cinnamon in his hometown in Kannur District wherein, he cultivates cinnamon for the last more than ten years. In the year 2015, he noticed that instead of cinnamon another product namely ‘Cassia’ imported from other countries were marketed in Kerala as a substitute for cinnamon.
4. Being aggrieved by this, petitioner has filed several complaints and thereafter, filed writ petition before this court seeking to ban sale of cassia in the country. This court, while considering the writ petition, has directed the third respondent – State of Kerala to inform the court whether it had taken any steps of prohibit sale of cassia in Kerala.
5. Main grievance of the petitioner is that there is inaction on the part of the respondents to create awareness to improve the health of the public and encourage them to avoid the unhealthy products available in the market. Article 47 of the Constitution mandates the State shall take all endeavor to create public awareness and that it is the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health as among their primary duties and State shall endeavor to bring about prohibition of consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health except for medicinal purpose.
6. Petitioner has submitted that the right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of the respondents to see that there is no presence of pesticides or any substance hazardous to health in the products supplied in the market whether it is food or medicine. It is also submitted that the Government is duty bound to spend a reasonable portion of funds on publicity for the purpose of creating awareness to the public about the health hazard caused by these fake and spurious products.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
8. Though Mr.E.Mohammed Shafi, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the prayers sought for, we are not inclined to issue any directions as sought for, since allocation of funds for various projects is purely the domain of the Government.
Moreover, it is discernible from Ext.P8 communication dated 12.1.2022 issued by the second respondent – Bureau of Outreach and Communication, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to the petitioner wherein, it is stated that the petitioner’s request has been forwarded to the competent authority for information and action.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to instruct the competent authorities under them to take appropriate decision on the request submitted by the petitioner and if any deci
