SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has refused to quash criminal proceedings against senior functionaries of a Gujarat-based dairy cooperative in a case involving allegedly unsafe milk marketed under the Amul brand, observing that “public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests.”
The judgment was delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on May 19, 2026, and pronounced on May 21, 2026.
The petitioners were represented by advocate Reyaz Ahmad Mir, while the Union Territory was represented by Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali.
The petition had been filed by SD Mevada, Assistant Manager (Quality Assurance), and Kamraj Ramsang Bhai Chaudary, Incharge Managing Director of M/s Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd., Gujarat, seeking quashing of a complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, and the cognizance order dated October 7, 2021.
The case arose after food safety authorities collected samples of “Amul Taza Homogenised Toned Milk” from Shopian. According to the petitioners, the initial report issued by the Food Analyst, Kashmir Division, on October 27, 2020 had declared the milk sample to be of “standard quality.”
However, the Designated Officer later referred the sample to the Referral Laboratory at the National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujarat, which subsequently declared the sample “unsafe” under provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The petitioners argued before the High Court that the referral to the Gujarat laboratory was illegal as no reasons had been recorded in writing under Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. They also contended that no opportunity of hearing was given before sending the sample for re-analysis and that the Managing Director could not be prosecuted because a separate quality control officer had already been nominated.
Rejecting the challenge, Justice Nargal held that the Designated Officer had validly exercised powers under the Rules after recording reasons that important parameters such as “antibiotic residues, pesticide residues and heavy metals” had not been examined in the first laboratory report.
Quoting the recorded reasons, the court noted that the Designated Officer found “only 8 parameters” had been tested in the initial analysis, while several “important parameters” remained unexamined.
The High Court observed that the statutory framework empowered authorities to seek comprehensive scientific analysis in larger public interest.
“The provision is intended to protect public health and safety and not merely individual commercial interests,” the court said.
The bench further held that once the Referral Laboratory issued its report, the earlier report of the Food Analyst lost significance under the statutory scheme.
Referring to the final report of the Referral Laboratory, the court said: “The Referral Laboratory under the statutory framework is the final scientific authority and the opinion rendered by such expert body carries overriding effect.”
On the petitioners’ argument seeking quashing under Section 482 CrPC, the court reiterated that inherent powers were to be exercised sparingly and not in cases involving disputed scientific evaluation.
“Matters relating to food safety involve technical and scientific evaluation which are best left to specialized expert bodies,” the court observed.
The court also rejected the plea that the Managing Director could not be prosecuted, holding that liability under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act extended to persons in overall control of the company’s affairs.
“Petitioner No. 2 cannot claim blanket immunity merely because another officer may have been nominated for quality control or food safety purposes,” the court said.
In a strongly worded observation on food safety, the High Court said milk was consumed daily by “children, infants, pregnant women, elderly persons, patients and general public,” and contaminated products could have “long-term and irreversible consequences.”
The bench cited the Supreme Court judgment in Vincent Panikurlangara vs Union of India to underline that maintenance and improvement of public health ranked among the highest constitutional priorities.
Justice Nargal also vacated the interim protection that had remained in operation since April 21, 2022, observing that continuation of the stay was “seriously jeopardizing the health of the public.”
Dismissing the petition and all connected applications, the High Court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, to proceed with the complaint expeditiously and preferably conclude the trial within six months.
The parties have been directed to appear before the trial court on July 10, 2026.
