Team code : TC-49

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VINIDA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VINDIA

W. P. NO: /2051

IN THE MATTER OF

CHILDRENS HEALTH FOUNDATION NGO ……….PETITIONERS

v.

VITA WELLS FOOD PVT. LTD.………………………...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………...………………………. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………….….………….…………5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………..…….……………….. 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………….………..…………………...7

QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………….…….….…..………………...10

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…………..………………..………….……….. 11

PLEADINGS………………….………………………………………………... 13

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32, GIVEN

THE CONSUMER FORUM’S EXISTING DIRECTIVE AND ITS SUFFICIENCY IN
ADDRESSING PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN …………………………………… 14
II. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE ACCURATE NUTRITIONAL CONTENT
OF NUTRIVITA AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE VINDIAN CONSTITUTION…………………………………….16
III. WHETHER THE AMBIGUITY IN THE CONSUMER FORUM’S DIRECTIVE
REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION ON NUTRIVITA’S
PACKAGING HAS ENABLED VITAWELLS FOOD PVT. LTD. TO EVADE FULL
ACCOUNTABILITY, UNDERMINING CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS AND
PUBLIC HEALTH SAFEGUARD IN India…………………………………….. 19

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………...26

2
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

W.P Writ petition

NO. /No/no number

S.C.C Supreme court cases

Vs./v. versus

S.C. Supreme court

Art. Article

cl. Clause

Hon’ble Honourable

Q. Question

A.I.R All India Record

Govt. Government

Ref. Reference

Rev. Review

Assn. Association

& And

Pg. Page

Addl. Additional

i.e., That is

CHF Children’s Health Foundation

NGO Non – Profit Organisation

3
PVT./pvt. Private

LTD./ Ltd. Limited

NCPCR National Commission for Protection of Child Rights

CPCR Commission for protection of child rights act 2005

FSS Food safety and Standards act 2006

FSSAV Food Safety and Standard Authority of Vindia

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFFERED –

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF India , 1950.

2. Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
3. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019

CASES REFFERED

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161

2. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37
3. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1991) 3 SCC 34
4. State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 57
5. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 21
6. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
7. Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42
8. Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767
9. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235
10. Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645
11. Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2004) 13 SCC 506
12. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1

WEBSITIES REFFERED

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.

3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.

4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.

5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS HONOURABLE

COURT UNDER ART 321 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED
THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN APPREHENSION OF THE VIOLATION OF RIGHTS THAT
INEVITABLY OCCUR. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF
INDIA FROM ANY VIOLATION OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, IS APPLICABLE IN THE
PRESENT CASE.

1
Article 32 in Constitution of India
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
1.The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this
Part is guaranteed.
2.The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.
3.Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court under clause (2).
4.The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution .
6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Vindia, a rapidly developing nation in South-East Asia, is characterized by a young, dynamic

population. With the second-largest population in the world, over 50% of its citizens are below the
age of 30, and a substantial portion of this demographic includes children under the age of 12. Rural
and semi-urban areas of Vindia remain vulnerable to issues such as malnutrition, food insecurity, and
limited access to healthcare.

2. In 1999, Vindia embarked on an ambitious economic liberalization program, which opened the
doors to both domestic and foreign companies entering various sectors, including Fast-Moving
Consumer Goods (FMCG). This wave of liberalization coincided with concerns from public health
bodies about the malnutrition crisis, especially among children. Despite rising household incomes,
many families in rural areas struggled to provide nutritious diets for their children, leading to stunted
growth and developmental issues.

3. In response to this nutrition crisis, VitaWells Food Pvt. Ltd.(Hereafter referred to as Company) a
well-established conglomerate in Vindia’s health food sector, launched NutriVitas in 2005.
NutriVitas was marketed as a malt-based "health drink" designed specifically for children aged 5-12,
targeting parents seeking affordable yet nutritious food options. Advertisements for NutriVitas were
omnipresent across television, billboards, and print media. The product claimed to support both
physical and cognitive development, with promises of enhanced energy, immunity, and
concentration.

4. NutriVitas key ingredients included malt extracts, milk solids, sugar, and several artificial
additives. Over the years, aggressive marketing positioned NutriVitas as a necessity for children’s
health, encouraging parents to substitute traditional dietary supplements with NutriVitas. The product
was advertised through celebrity endorsements and school campaigns branding NutriVitas as the
premier choice for promoting children's well-being.

5. By 2012, NutriVitas had captured a significant portion of the malt-based health drink market in
Vindia. Vita Wells’ expansive reach enabled the product to penetrate urban, semi-urban, and rural
markets alike. Many families began to rely heavily on NutriVitas 2 as a dietary supplement,
especially in rural areas where it was seen as an affordable alternative to more expensive and
nutrient-rich food products.

6. However, by 2021, a disturbing trend began to emerge. Public health officials, alongside medical
experts, observed a rise in childhood obesity, early onset diabetes, and hypertension among children

7
in the 5-12 age group—the very demographic that consumed NutriVitas regularly. The report
highlighted that NutriVitas contained excessive sugar and artificial additives, which were not clearly
disclosed on its packaging. While Vita Wells advertised NutriVitas as a healthy and nutritious drink,

7. Medical professionals raised concerns about the long-term health effects of the artificial additives
used in the drink.

8. As a result, public outcry erupted. Parents felt deceived by the misleading health claims, and child
health advocates demanded immediate action. The media picked up the story, further fuelling
nationwide debate about food safety, children’s health, and corporate responsibility.

9. Amidst growing pressure, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a
statutory body established under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (CPCR
Act), initiated an investigation into the marketing and safety of NutriVitas. Under Section 14 of the
CPCR Act, the NCPCR has the power to inquire into violations of children’s rights and recommend
actions. The Commission expressed concerns about NutriVitas being marketed as a "health drink,"
especially in the absence of a legal definition or standards for such products under the Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act, 2006).

10. Simultaneously, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of Vindia (FSSAV), the statutory body
tasked with ensuring food safety, launched its own inquiry. Following a thorough review, the FSSAV
concluded that NutriVitas packaging and marketing were misleading and in violation of food safety
laws. FSSAV clarified that there was no legally recognized definition of "health drink" under the FSS
Act, 2006, and NutriVitas marketing claims lacked sufficient scientific evidence. The FSSAV also
pointed out that NutriVitas packaging failed to disclose key nutritional information, including the
high sugar content and the presence of artificial additives. 3

11. After the inquiry, the State Consumer Forum heard complaints filed by parents and public health
bodies against Vita Wells. The Forum issued a directive in mid-2023, ordering Vita Wells to disclose
the nutritional value of NutriVitas on its packaging and to pay a substantial fine for misleading
advertising. However, the Forum’s directive was criticized for being ambiguous, particularly
concerning the specific nutritional information required. Upon reviewing the submissions and the
issues raised regarding Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd.’s product, NutriVitas, the Forum directs as follows:
i. ii. Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd. is ordered to pay an appropriate penalty for its failure to meet
acceptable standards in packaging and advertising. The amount of this penalty is to be determined
and settled accordingly. Vita Wells must ensure that NutriVitas packaging contains clearer nutritional
information, especially regarding sugar content and other additives, within a reasonable time frame.
8
iii. The company is advised to modify its marketing materials and ensure that any health-related
claims align with scientific standards and regulatory guidelines. iv. The company is expected to
comply with these directives and implement the necessary changes in due course, subject to
oversight by the relevant regulatory authority.

12. This lack of clarity allegedly allowed the company to continue omitting certain details while
minimally complying with the order.

13. The NGO, Children’s Health Foundation (CHF) an NGO dedicated to protecting children’s
health, filed the Writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Vindian
Constitution, arguing that Vita Wells’ failure to adequately disclose the nutritional content of
NutriVitas violates the Right to Life (Article 21) of children.

14. NutriVitas is distributed and consumed across Vindia, making the issue a matter of national
importance rather than a localized dispute. The petitioners argued that only the Supreme Court, with
its authority to issue directives applicable nationwide, could ensure consistent application of the law
across different states. 4

15. The case involves a significant legal question regarding corporate responsibility in ensuring
transparency when marketing products to vulnerable populations. Given the national scope of the
product’s reach and the public health implications, it was deemed a matter of public importance,
meriting the attention of the Supreme Court to set a legal precedent.

16. The petitioners further argued that the Consumer Forum’s directive was vague and ambiguous,
allowing Vita Wells to comply superficially without genuinely adhering to the spirit of the order. This
ambiguity has broader implications for consumer rights, particularly under the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, and thus necessitated the intervention of the apex court for a definitive interpretation

9
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32, given the Consumer Forum’s
existing directive and its sufficiency in addressing public health concerns

2. Whether the failure to disclose the accurate nutritional content of NutriVitas amounts to a
violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Vindian Constitution

3. Whether the ambiguity in the Consumer Forum’s directive regarding the display of
nutritional information on NutriVitas packaging has enabled Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd. to
evade full accountability, undermining Consumer protection laws and public health
safeguard in India?

10
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Issue 1-Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32, given the Consumer
Forum’s existing directive and its sufficiency in addressing public health concerns

The petition filed under Article 32 has merit because Vita Wells' deceptive promotion of NutriVitas
violates children's health rights guaranteed by Article 21. This marketing strategy plays a part in the
growing problem of obesity among kids and related health concerns. Court decisions support the
government's duty to safeguard health and step in when the Constitution is breached when other
options like consumer forums don't work well enough. The Supreme Court needs to take action
because this is a nationwide issue that affects public health. Its involvement is crucial to hold
companies responsible, create consistent rules, and protect basic rights.

Issue 2 - Whether the failure to disclose the accurate nutritional content of NutriVitas amounts
to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Vindian Constitution

Not disclosing the precise nutritional content of NutriVitas can well become a violation of the Right
to Life of individuals under Article 21 of the Vindian Constitution, as such non-discrimination of fact
primarily affects public health more so those groups who are most vulnerable, especially children.
The article grants the right to a healthy and dignified life, which should include truthful information
about products that affect physical health. Even by means of somewhat misleading advertising that
promotes NutriVitas as a health drink but hides essential facts such as high sugar and artificial
additives, Vita Wells have duped customers. This fraudulent act resulted in making children
overweight and diabetic while infringing upon their right to health. Such acts violate principles of
transparency and accountability, which are critical to protecting public health and ensuring informed
consumer decisions, and would therefore violate the protective ambit of Article 21

Issue 3- Whether the ambiguity in the Consumer Forum’s directive regarding the display of
nutritional information on NutriVitas packaging has enabled Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd. to
evade full accountability, undermining Consumer protection laws and public health safeguard
in India?

The Consumer Forum’s vague directive has allowed Vita Wells to avoid meaningful compliance,
leaving consumers uninformed about harmful ingredients like sugar and additives. This undermines

11
public health, erodes consumer trust, and sets a weak regulatory precedent, while placing an undue
burden on institutions to monitor and enforce compliance.

12
 PLEADINGS

1. - Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32, given the Consumer
Forum’s existing directive and its sufficiency in addressing public health concerns

1.1 Direct violation of art. 21 : right to life and health –

The constitution under art 21 guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity which
includes the right to health and safe and accurate information about products that are
advertised as “health drinks”. Vita wells misleading marketing practices and inadequate
disclosure about NutriVitas nutritional content i.e. the sugar content and the artificial
additives , directly impact children’s health as reported by public health officials alongside
medical health professionals. They highlighted that a rise in childhood obesity , early onset of
diabetes and hypertension among children. These rising health issues among children is of
nation-wide concern .
In the Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) the supreme court expanded the
scope of article 21 to include the right to live with dignity , which includes having access to
adequate health care and nutrition .2
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) the court
highlighted that the state has an obligation to safeguard health under art. 21 3. Citation -

1.2 Insufficiency of alternative remedies -

The consumers forums directive to Vita Wells lacks clarity and enforcement since Vita wells
has continued to sell its product in the market while still omitting certain details about
NutriVitas hence still continuing to disrupt public health and concern. The NCPCR initiated
an investigation under art 14 of the CPCR act which later raised concerns about the
marketing of the Vita wells product NutriVitas which is being marketed as a health drink
which is misleading and false advertisement. The consumers forum even though having
issued a directive against Vita wells , the company has continued to omit details about the
nutritional content of NutriVitas showing that the consumer forums don’t have the statutory

2
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161
3
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37

13
 power to make this a nation-wide concern whereas the supreme court has the authority to
ensure the application of law across various states.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985) 4 when the
issue involves public health and environment statutory mechanisms alone are inadequate and
the supreme courts intervention is necessary. This judicial precedent goes to prove that public
health issues arising from misleading marketing by NutriVitas cannot be only addressed by
the consumers forum or the FSSAV but should also be addressed by the supreme court .
citation -

State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 5 this case
highlights that while the consumers forum and FSSAV have issued a directive they are
statutory bodies and they are ill-equipped to address the constitutional violation affecting
child's right to health only supreme court can comprehensively address these issue
citation -

Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah (1955)6 the court held that technical remedies
cannot override substantive justice in matters involving fundamental rights . this again goes
to show that the supreme courts intervention is required to provide justice to children the
future of our country as alternative remedies have proven to be inadequate and vague in
nature

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)7 the court held that the procedural inefficiency or
vagueness in the statutory bodies cannot dilute the enforcement of fundamental rights through
article 32 . the consumers fourms vagueness in the directive allow Vita wells to evade
accountability necessitating the supreme to protect children’s fundamental rights

FSSAV identified violation in Nutri vitas packaging and marketing. The regulatory
framework under the FSS act 2006 lacks a legally defined standard for health drink leaving
gaps in the consumers protection. In the Consumer Education and Research Centre v.

4
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., (1991) 3 SCC 347
5
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 57

6
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 21

7
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416

14
 Union of India (1995)8 case the court held that in the absence of effective statutory
protection, constitutional remedies must ensure consumer safety here the children’s safety
and public health justifying the maintainability of a writ petition under art 32

1.3 Matter of national importance –

NutriVitas is distributed and consumer across rural , semi-urban and urbans areas of Vindia.
The widespread use of the product and its adverse impact on children’s health makes this
issue a national concern rather than a localised dispute . misleading advertisement and
marketing as “ health drink” causing irreversible health consequences is off national
importance. The directives from the consumers forums have failed to address the systemic
nature of the problem. Given the nationwide reach of NutriVitas inconsistent enforcement by
authorities would lead to disparities in consumer protection a supreme court directive would
ensure uniformity in the regulation of health- related products avoiding jurisdictional
inconsistencies the misleading advertising by Vita wells not only undermines consumer trust
but also violates constitutional principles of fairness and accountability.
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India (1986)9 the court held that the issues
affecting marginalized or large sections of society here the children , merit the supreme court
intervention under art 32 .
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)10 the court held that
private entities can be held accountable under art 32 if their actions undermine fundamental
rights. It is the constitutional obligation of the state to take the necessary steps for the purpose
of interdiction such violation and ensuring observance of the fundamental right by the private
who is transgressing the same.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987)11 the court imposed strict liability on private entities for
actions that harmed public health and safety

8
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42

9
Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, (1986) 4 SCC 767
10
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235

11
- M.C. Mehta (Child Labour matter) v. State of T.N., (1996) 6 SCC 756

15
2. Whether the failure to disclose the accurate nutritional content of NutriVitas amounts
to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Vindian Constitution.
It is humbly submitted that Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd.’s failure to disclose the accurate
nutritional content of NutriVitas violates the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Vindian
Constitution, as it endangers the health and wellbeing of children, a vulnerable demographic.
2.1 The right to life means the right to health.
The Counsel for NutriVitas now meekly argues that by not presenting the actual nutritive
value of NutriVitas, an infringement of the Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Vindian Constitution has been committed. Article 21 of the constitution means it is
unlawful to deprive a person of life unless the law provides the procedures by which it
can be done. NutriVitas was presented as a ‘health drink,’ and so parents thought that it
was a good supplement for children. But instead, it gave such health risks as obesity,
diabetes, and hypertension and thus tended to the health as well as physical development
of such children. To this extent the states FAIL in their duties to protect the Right to Life.
These health conditions cause a negative impact on children’s general wellbeing which is
contrary to the provision of Article 21 the right of children to a healthy life. This can be
even inferred from the judgment in Maggi Noodles Case (Nestlé India Ltd v Food Safety
and Standard Authority of India, 2015 where Bombay High Court temporarily
banned…”Misleading claims and presence of lead which are hazardous to health impairs
people’s right to life and thereby violates Art21 in the negative sense”. the Right to Life
under Article 21 of the Vindian Constitution, as it endangers the health and well-being of
children, a vulnerable demographic.
2.2 Deceptive Marketing Practices which violate Public Trust
Moreover, Vita Wells ls public relations campaign was highly charged despite the fact
that it targeted schools and low-income families as NutriVitas was promoted as a vitamin
supplement that was compulsory to the human body. Through not revealing detail
wanting to know how much sugar is present and other additives present that are very
dangerous to health, the company made people buy something that is very dangerous to
their lives. The display of information on food and drinks is very vital for the society in
that it helps consumers to make – – – – – – the right decisions. They have denied

16
 consumers this basic power over the health of themselves and their children and, as such,
their Right to Health under Article 21. People in the rural and semi-urban areas where
they may not be well informed of their nutritional needs as those in urban area were taken
in by the fact that NutriVitas was a healthy food product, the African way of preparing it
notwithstanding. The practice of using a susceptible group in society with no adequate
information on the nutritional content of these products is a clear violation of the
constitution on protection of health and dignity of persons. In Horlicks Ltd. vs Heinz
India (P) Ltd. (2009) the court stated that besides poll mimicry or deception of
consumers, such advertisements are detrimental to competitors’ goodwill. To the court,
there was immense pressure on advertisers to make truthful and verifiable statements in
the advertisements.
2.3 : Consequences on the Health of Children
NutriVitas is associated with childhood obesity, early onset diabetes and hypertension in
children in the 5–12 age group according to public health reports on the product. These
avoidable health risks cut the years people live and their well-being; they violate the
Right to Life under Article 21. The apex court of the land has time and again reminded
the obligation of preserving children ‘rights and their interests under the Right to Life.
“The constitution of the Kenya states in Article 39(f) that children are provided
opportunities and facilities for to develop in a healthy manner in conditions of freedom
and dignity and that children and youth are protected from exploitation and abandonment
including nutritional abuse But NutriVitas denied them the right of healthy living as
provided in Article 39 Article 21.e Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to protect
children’s rights and interests as part of the broader Right to Life (MC Mehta v. State of
Tamil Nadu)12 Article 39(f) of the Constitution says that “that children are given
opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom
and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against
moral and material abandonment” .But NutriVitas violated Article 39 Article 21 by
prohibiting them their right to live a healthy life Out of all of these, one prime example is
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013) where students from various
stated who consumed the mid-day meals got food poisoning and the Hence the Supreme

12
M.C. Mehta (Child Labour matter) v. State of T.N., (1996) 6 SCC 756

17
 Court stressed on the Scientific methods of Food Chain and inspections and directions for
quality of food provided to the children brought under Article 21 (right to life) of the
constitution of India.
2.4 Children as a Vulnerable Group
It also affects children as a vulnerable group of the population that relies on adult
decisions to improve its health and diet. Since the general populace perceives NutriVitas
as a health enhancing product through consuming it as a drink Vita Wells has capitalized
on this vulnerability. That is why this conscious exclusion constitutes an act of negligence
and irresponsibility, and a violation of the child’s rights to a healthy life. Unnikrishnan
J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)13:- pronounced that the right to education flows
from the right to life of the constitution under Article 21. It stated that stunted children
cannot progress well in school and they suffer from compromised mental health too. The
judgment also stressed that the proper nutrition, including the food children need to
receive in governmental schools, is the prerequisite of their further development. Mother
Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2003)14 – This case is associated
with the contamination of milk and its fatal effects of fresh edible products which adds
vital nutrients to children’s diet. The Court described as very alarming the need for
compliance with food laws to ensure food sold to children is not tainted with substandard
products
2.5 State Responsibility to regulate
: The Article 21 imposes an affirmative duty on the state to citizens in as much as the
exercise of their rights under Article 21 is being compromised by action, including those
of private actors. Sadly, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of Vindia (FSSAV) have
not done enough to make proper labelling standards especially to prevent this aspect that I
consider that it violates Article 21. State's Obligation to Protect Public Health: Right to
Health under Article 21: The right to health is part of the right to life which makes the
state have a positive duty not to expose citizens to health risks because of false corporate
practices. The state is therefore accused of shirking its constitutional duty to protect the
health of the young people especially children through a policy that does not enforce rigid
measures in the aspect of food labelling and safety. Duty to Regulate and Monitor:

13
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645
14
Mother Dairy Foods & Processing Ltd. v. Food Inspector (2004) 13 SCC 506

18
 FSSAV: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of Vindia and National Commission
for Protection of Child Rights are the Government Organizations which are already
mandated regarding food safety and children protection respectively. The petitioners also
argue that these bodies failed to effectively policing NutriVitas marketing and packaging.
That the so-called “health drinks” do not fall under any legally enforceable standard of
legal recognition under the FSS Act 2006 means that there is an institutional neglect,
which the state cannot allow especially with a vulnerable section of the society. In Centre
for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013)15 thus the state was accused of
not putting adequate measures that would minimize the use of red colour on foods that are
important in the diet of individuals. And the court urged the government to enhance the
measures of enforcement and testing which would help to protect the food.

3. Whether the ambiguity in the Consumer Forum’s directive regarding the display of
nutritional information on NutriVitas packaging has enabled Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd. to
evade full accountability, undermining consumer protection laws and public health
safeguards in India?
3.1 Vagueness of the Directive Facilitates Minimal Compliance:
the vagueness of the Consumer Forum’s directive has facilitated minimal compliance by Vita
Wells Food Pvt. Ltd., thereby undermining consumer protection.
-Lack of Specificity in the Directive: The directive requires Vita Wells to provide “clearer
nutritional information” on its NutriVitas packaging. However, it fails to define the specific
details or the format in which this information should be presented. This ambiguity creates
room for superficial compliance, as Vita Wells can technically meet the directive without
making substantial disclosures.
-Superficial Compliance Avoids Full Transparency: With no clear standards outlined, Vita
Wells can sidestep meaningful changes in its packaging. For instance, it may choose to
highlight less significant nutritional data while downplaying critical information, such as high
sugar content or the use of artificial additives. This approach prevents consumers from fully
understanding the health implications of the product.
-Weak Enforcement Mechanisms: The absence of precise guidelines also weakens regulatory
enforcement. Compliance becomes a subjective matter, as it is left to interpretation rather

15
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 1

19
than being measured against clear, standardized criteria. As a result, authorities face
challenges in holding the company fully accountable for non-compliance.
-Implications for Public Health and Consumer Rights: The vagueness not only undermines
consumer protection laws but also puts public health at risk. Consumers rely on accurate and
comprehensive nutritional information to make informed choices, and the lack of clarity in
such directives can compromise their ability to do so.
Nestle Maggi,(India 2015) was a major food safety controversy that erupted after tests
conducted by authorities in Uttar Pradesh revealed excessive levels of lead—up to 17 times
the permissible limit—in Maggi noodles, along with misleading claims of “No added MSG”
on the packaging. While Nestlé argued that their product met safety standards and that
glutamates occurred naturally from ingredients like hydrolysed proteins, the Food Safety and
Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) banned the sale of Maggi noodles nationwide, leading
to a massive recall and the destruction of over 38,000 tons of the product. Nestlé challenged
the ban in court, and after independent tests cleared the noodles, they returned to the market
in November 2015. The case caused significant financial losses for Nestlé and temporarily
damaged consumer trust, while also highlighting gaps in India’s food safety regulations, the
need for stricter labelling standards, and the importance of robust enforcement mechanisms.
3.2 Lack of Transparency Harms Consumer Trust:
lack of clear standards in the Consumer Forum’s directive has enabled Vita Wells to engage
in superficial compliance, avoiding full transparency The directive does not provide precise
instructions or a standardized framework
-Absence of Clear Standards: The directive does not provide precise instructions or a
standardized framework for the type and format of nutritional information that must be
displayed. This gap allows Vita Wells to determine what constitutes “clearer nutritional
information” on its terms. Without explicit requirements, companies can exploit this
flexibility to comply minimally without addressing core concerns about consumer rights and
public health.
-Selective Presentation of Nutritional Data: Instead of providing a comprehensive nutritional
profile, Vita Wells might choose to emphasize less significant details while neglecting critical
information that could impact consumer health.
-Misleading Packaging Practices: This selective disclosure can be misleading. Consumers
might be swayed by prominently displayed positive aspects of the product while remaining
unaware of potentially harmful components. This tactic undermines the principle of informed
consent, which is a cornerstone of consumer protection laws.
20
-Limited Understanding of Health Implications : By downplaying critical nutritional
information, Vita Wells prevents consumers from fully grasping the health consequences of
consuming their products. For instance:
•High sugar content can contribute to obesity, diabetes, and other lifestyle diseases.
•The inclusion of artificial additives may have long-term health impacts that consumers
deserve to know.
-Erosion of Consumer Trust : When companies prioritize superficial compliance over
meaningful transparency, it erodes public trust in the regulatory system and the brands
themselves. This not only harms consumers but also weakens the credibility of consumer
protection frameworks.
In 2020, Patanjali Ayurved launched “Coronil,” claiming it as a cure for COVID-19, which
sparked widespread controversy due to the lack of scientific validation and misleading
marketing. The company highlighted the natural and immunity-boosting properties of the
product but failed to provide transparent clinical trial data or regulatory approvals to
substantiate its claims. After scrutiny from the Indian Ministry of AYUSH, Patanjali was
directed to market Coronil only as an immunity booster, not as a cure. The incident eroded
public trust in the brand, raised concerns about misleading health claims, and highlighted the
need for stricter regulations and transparency in the marketing of health products.

3.3 Health Risks from Undisclosed Additives:

NutriVitas inadequate labelling of sugar content and artificial additives has serious
implications for public health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children. The
excessive consumption of sugar and artificial additives, often hidden in food products
marketed as healthy, is linked to rising rates of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other
chronic conditions like cardiovascular diseases and dental problems. By failing to highlight
these key nutritional details prominently on its packaging, NutriVitas denies consumers the
opportunity to make informed dietary choices, especially in contexts where awareness of
such risks is already limited.
Moreover, the absence of stringent and mandatory labelling requirements in the Consumer
Forum’s directive exacerbates the problem, as companies like Vita Wells Food Pvt. Ltd.,
which manufactures NutriVitas, can evade full accountability. Without clear instructions to
disclose crucial information in an accessible and transparent format, the directive enables
superficial compliance that undermines its original intent of safeguarding public health. This

21
regulatory gap shifts the burden of identifying potentially harmful ingredients onto
consumers, many of whom may lack the expertise or time to thoroughly analyse labels.
The health implications are particularly concerning in India, where non-communicable
diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes and obesity are on the rise, creating a public health crisis.
For children, who are often the target market for products like NutriVitas, the long-term
consequences of consuming high levels of sugar and artificial additives include poor
academic performance, psychological challenges due to obesity-related stigma, and a higher
likelihood of developing lifelong health issues. In rural and semi-urban areas, where literacy
about nutritional content and health risks may be lower, the impact is even more pronounced,
as families may rely on misleading marketing claims rather than accurate nutritional
information.
The failure to mandate comprehensive and detailed labelling not only perpetuates health risks
but also undermines consumer trust in regulatory frameworks and public health safeguards. A
lack of transparency and accountability on the part of manufacturers like Vita Wells Food Pvt.
Ltd. may deter broader efforts to promote healthier consumption habits and reinforce a cycle
of poor dietary practices across generations.
The Coca-Cola and Pepsi water contamination case (2003) arose when the Centre for
Science and Environment (CSE) reported that soft drinks from these brands contained
pesticide residues 30 to 36 times higher than the permissible European Union limits. The
pesticides, including DDT and chlorpyrifos, posed significant health risks, such as cancer and
immune system damage. The revelation sparked public outrage, led to temporary bans in
some states, and prompted a parliamentary investigation that confirmed the findings and
highlighted regulatory lapses in India’s food safety standards. Coca-Cola and Pepsi denied
the allegations, attributing the issue to broader water quality problems in India. The case
resulted in increased awareness of food safety, stricter standards for pesticide residues, and
significant damage to the companies’ reputations, though they eventually regained market
share. The company was accused of using water that contained pesticides

3.4 Precedents for Weak Regulatory Standards:

-Vague Directives : The introduction of vague regulatory directives creates uncertainty and
ambiguity in the enforcement of consumer protection laws. When regulations lack clarity,
businesses may interpret them in ways that serve their interests rather than prioritizing

22
consumer safety. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistent application of standards and
regulations across different industries, jeopardizing the integrity of consumer protections.
- Exploitation of Loopholes: Companies often seek to maximize profits while minimizing
costs. If regulatory guidelines are unclear or poorly defined, businesses may exploit these
loopholes to bypass essential safety measures. For example, they might reduce the quality of
ingredients or omit necessary disclosures about harmful additives, placing consumers at risk.
- Dilution of Consumer Protection :When businesses take advantage of weak regulations, it
undermines the intended purpose of consumer protection laws. These laws are established to
safeguard public health and ensure that consumers have access to safe, reliable products.
Weak standards can lead to an erosion of trust between consumers and manufacturers, as
people may feel that their health is being compromised for profit.
- Long-term Consequences :The establishment of weak regulatory standards can have lasting
impacts on public health. If businesses are not held accountable for their practices, the
prevalence of health issues associated with poor-quality products may increase over time.
This can place additional burdens on healthcare systems and contribute to broader social and
economic challenges. use regulatory directives creates uncertainty and ambiguity in the
enforcement of consumer protection laws. When regulations lack clarity, businesses may
interpret them in ways that serve their interests rather than prioritizing consumer safety. This
ambiguity can lead to inconsistent application of standards and regulations across different
industries, jeopardizing the integrity of consumer protections.
The Dabur Honey Adulteration Case (2020) came to light when the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE) reported that popular honey brands, including Dabur, were adulterated
with sugar syrups, which failed purity tests despite claims of being “100% pure.” The
adulteration was discovered using advanced Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) testing,
which was not part of India’s standard honey purity checks. While Dabur denied the
allegations, claiming compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) guidelines, the controversy damaged the trust in the brand. The case highlighted
regulatory gaps and led to calls for stricter testing standards and greater transparency in the
food industry to protect consumer health and prevent misleading marketing of health
products.

3.5 Burden on Public Institutions to Monitor Compliance:

-Increased Responsibility for Regulatory Bodies :When directives lack specificity, the onus
falls heavily on regulatory agencies like the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
23
 (FSSAI) to interpret these vague guidelines. This added responsibility not only stretches the
resources of these agencies but also places them in the challenging position of trying to make
sense of ambiguous regulations, which can lead to inconsistencies in enforcement.
-Challenges in Enforcement :With unclear directives, regulatory bodies may face difficulties
in establishing clear compliance criteria for companies. This can create a situation where
businesses may not fully understand what is required of them, making it challenging for the
FSSAI to enforce standards uniformly. Consequently, some manufacturers may exploit these
ambiguities, while others strive to comply, resulting in an uneven playing field.
- Delayed Corrective Action :If regulatory authorities struggle to interpret vague guidelines,
the timeframe for identifying and addressing compliance issues may be significantly
prolonged. This delay can hinder timely corrective actions, allowing problematic products to
remain in the market longer than necessary. The consequences of such delays can exacerbate
public health risks as consumers continue to be exposed to potentially harmful products
without adequate protection.
- Perpetuation of Corporate Misconduct :When companies realize that regulatory oversight is
weak or ambiguous, they may see an opportunity to engage in unethical practices without
fear of punishment. This culture of impunity can lead to widespread corporate misconduct,
where businesses prioritize profit over consumer safety. As such behaviours become
normalized, the overall credibility of regulatory bodies can diminish, leading to further public
mistrust.
- Increased Workload for Compliance Monitoring : Vague directives can result in an
increased workload for regulatory agencies, requiring them to invest more time and resources
into monitoring compliance. This may divert attention and funding from other critical areas,
such as developing new public health initiatives or improving existing food safety protocols.
In 2020, Patanjali faced scrutiny over its marketing of Amla Juice16, which claimed to offer
numerous health benefits, including boosting immunity and treating various ailments.
However, the lack of clear regulatory guidelines from the Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (FSSAI) on health claims in advertisements led to confusion and concerns
about misleading promotions. While Patanjali continued to market the product with such
claims, the ambiguity surrounding the regulatory framework for health-related advertisements
in India made it difficult for regulatory bodies to take swift action. This case highlighted the
challenges in enforcing standards for health claims and added to the regulatory burden on

16
Amla Juice Health Claims Under Scrutiny." Food Safety and Standards Authority of India Press Release, 2020.
24
FSSAI, raising concerns about consumer protection and the potential for misleading
marketing in the food and beverage sector.

25
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge
and:

1. Declare that NutriVitas misleading practices violate children’s fundamental rights and order
full disclosure of nutritional information on its packaging.
2. Direct the company to stop false advertisements and instruct the FSSAV to establish clear
standards for health drinks.
3. Appoint an oversight committee to monitor compliance and ensure compensation for
families affected by NutriVitas harmful effects.
4. Issue nationwide guidelines to regulate the marketing and sale of products targeting children
to protect their health and rights.

AND

GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT
IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE,

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. (S/D)

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS/-

DATE:

PLACE: SUPREME COURT OF VINDIA

26