The Sindh High Court (SHC) dismissed the pleas of importers of infant formula milk against the Sindh Protection and Promotion of Breastfeeding and Young Child Nutrition Act, 2023.
Petitioner Nutrico Morinaga and others had said in the petitions that the Breastfeeding Act was enacted without statutory authority in violation of Article 116 of the Constitution. They also sought an injunction against the government officials from taking any coercive action against them, including interfering with their smooth business operations and disrupting the sale, promotion and distribution of their products in the market, but they refused. Not limited to
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned legislation was a matter of national policy and was enacted without consultation and/or consideration of the stakeholders, while it also exceeded the legislative competence.
He also said that this law violated the fundamental guarantees and rights of the petitioners and could not be sustained. Counsel submitted that Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Breast-feeding Act highlighted excessive restriction, which had the effect of completely stopping the business of the petitioners in the province and beyond, when That no proper procedure was provided. For product registration with concerned authorities.
He said the prohibitions are vague and vague, and they are creating uncertainty throughout the business industry, including but not limited to the sale, packaging and labeling of products. Further, counsel submitted that the promotion and advertisement in respect of the products of the petitioners have also been restricted and/or restricted. Therefore, the impugned legislation could not be implemented and must be declared against the Constitution and the fundamental rights of the petitioners.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned legislation was framed in accordance with international health requirements and informed by various agencies including the United Nations, therefore, no exception could be made to the said law.
He said that the petitioners are engaged in deceiving people in general by using children’s health as a means of marketing, while the illegal legislation protected the public interest and fulfilled all such requirements that benefited the entire society. I am
The division bench of the Sindh High Court, headed by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, after hearing the arguments of the lawyers, remarked that it is a fact that the rate of breastfeeding in the first six months of birth in Sindh province was extremely low. level, while the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding only until the baby is six months old at which time additional solid foods can be introduced.
The SHC observed that there was a fundamental flaw in the repealed law, as it did not provide any protection to children aged 24 months to 36 months and the Breastfeeding Act had amended certain important provisions as well as definitions. Defects were removed.
The High Court observed that the provisions raised by the petitioners were in fact measures designed to protect the health and welfare of infants, promote their proper nutrition and growth, while other Provided very relevant inputs for the provinces to follow up.
The SHC observed that the legislation also discouraged deceptive advertising and marketing tactics by infant formula manufacturers and restricted physicians. Because it required strict compliance to undermine these deceptive marketing and tactics.
The bench observed that the non-statutory analysis of the Breast-feeding Act led the court to conclude that even if there was a situation where, due to strict compliance with the earlier law, the business of the petitioners would be affected. had been But that in itself cannot be a ground for striking down an illegal act in the larger interest of the community.
The SHC observed that the petitioners were required to follow the law, and in doing so if they had to give up some of their profits, it was certainly not a case of violation of any of their fundamental rights. is as claimed by them. The High Court observed that the contentions raised by the petitioners that the Breastfeeding Act was enacted in violation of Articles 4, 8, 9, 18 and 25 of the Constitution were misconceived and dismissed the petitions.