Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has asked the Central Government to look into the apprehensions raised about potential risk factors associated with the consumption of fortified rice distributed through various welfare schemes.

Fortified rice is supplied through the Public Distribution System, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Mid-day Meal Scheme, and other welfare schemes of the Government of India in all the States and Union Territories.

The division bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad was dealing with two PILs filed challenging the supply of fortified rice. The PILs were filed by Kanimozhi Manimaran of Tamil Thesiya Periyakkam, an unregistered socio-political movement, and advocate M. Vetri Selvan.

The contention of the petitioners was that without scientific study the fortified rice is being distributed through the welfare schemes. 

They asserted that neither a risk analysis nor a risk assessment had been conducted, and the operational guidelines issued by the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, for evaluating the provision, coverage, and utilization of fortified rice among the target population had not been followed. Furthermore, they highlighted the absence of any statutory warning mandated by the government.

The petitioners underscored that individuals with specific medical conditions should not consume fortified rice. They stressed the importance of conducting an independent, scientific social-cum-medical audit of the pilot scheme for distributing fortified rice before its further expansion.

Additionally, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) stated that there has been no proper medical evaluation conducted on the target population following the implementation of the pilot scheme.

Moreover, the court noted that the NITI Aayog report also indicates that the baseline study, which should precede the pilot scheme, has not been carried out.

Therefore, court asked the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the respondent authorities to take instructions on all these aspects.

Court emphasized that the two public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the supply of fortified rice shouldn't be viewed as adversarial litigation.

"The Central Government shall look into the apprehensions expressed by the petitioners," ordered the court while posting the matter for next hearing on June 19 at the request of ASG. 

Case Title: M.VETRI SELVAN V UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER AND CONNECTED MATTER