SC ordered State Governments to Curb Sale of Adulterated Milk

The Supreme Court of India on 2 July 2013 expressing its concerns over the sale of adulterated milk in the country ordered State Governments to curb the practice of sale.

A Bench of Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose directed the State Governments of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi to file their response stating what action they are taking to put an end to the menace of milk adulteration. The Court said that it would later expand the ambit of the PIL to include all the states in the country on the issue.

The Supreme Court in its order cleared that it will not grant any further time to the states to file their submission after the next hearing date scheduled on 31 July 2013.

The decision of the court came after it heard a PIL filed by a group of citizens led by Swami Achyutanand Tirth of Uttarakhand, who claimed use of urea, detergent, refined oil, caustic soda and white paint in preparation of synthetic and adulterated milk and milk products. The filed PIL has also demanded constitution of a comprehensive policy on production, supply and sale of hygienic, healthy and natural milk.

As per the data provided to the Supreme Court in 2012 by the Union Government of India about 68 percent of milk in the country doesn’t conform to the set standards of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The data was based upon the survey conducted by FSSAI in 2011 that claimed non-conformation on standards of over 68 percent of milk in urban area, with 66 percent available as loose milk.  

FSSAI in its survey claimed that the most common process of adulteration was addition of water in milk and addition of glucose, skimmed milk powder and detergent were noted as the basic reason for deviation from the standards. The affidavit filed by the Union Government claimed that more than 83 percent of milk in rural areas was found to be loose were of non-conforming standards. The Union Government filed this affidavit as a reply of the notice issued to the center on May 2012.