The Hindu Business Line : Pesticide content issue — Pepsi, Coke move SC on Rajasthan HC directive

HINDUSTAN Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Pepsi Foods Ltd have challenged before the Supreme Court a direction issued by the Rajasthan High Court asking them to declare either "soft drink does not contain pesticide residues" or "Soft drink is safe. The level of pesticide residue is well within all applicable standards."

A three-judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Mr R.C. Lahoti, Mr Justice C.K. Thakker and Mr Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan on Monday fixed the special leave petitions (SLP) for further hearing on August 25. The SLP filed by the petitioner before the High Court will also be heard on that day.

Appearing for Coca Cola, senior counsel Mr Harish Salve submitted that the High Court failed to consider that directions issued by it could be addressed only legislatively. The court could not take over the jurisdiction of the Legislature. He said the declaration sought to be implemented would not serve the purpose of the consumer. He added that there was no material before the High Court to pass such an order.

Mr Salve agreed that a consumer had a right to know the contents but the High Court had mechanically issued the direction without taking into consideration any of the materials submitted. He said the language prescribed by the court was more likely to spread unwarranted panic among consumers than to add to consumer understanding of the significant information about food and beverage products.

He said it was well known that milk contained arsenic material. For that reason, "Will you ask the Mother Diary to display that milk contains arsenic material in permissible levels?" If that was done then no one will take milk, he said.

Senior counsel Mr K.K. Venugopal appeared for Pepsi and even as he began his submissions, the court fixed August 25 for further hearing of the matter.

In its SLP, Coca Cola said the High Court in its June 1 order had formulated a declaration without applying its mind whether such a declaration would serve the intended purpose of promoting informed choice by the consumer. It said the very existence of such a declaration on the products would create a misleading impression that these products alone carried the threat of pesticide contaminants, warranting such a declaration. It added that this was a misleading impression because it concealed the fact that other food and beverage products such as tea, coffee, milk, juice and squash contained far higher pesticide residue content but were permitted by law. Pepsi filed a similar SLP. The two SLPs sought quashing of the impugned judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page