Why Stop At Prasad? Supreme Court Asks While Dismissing PIL Seeking Testing Of Prasad Offered In Temples Across Country
The Supreme Court today dismissed a PIL seeking the State's intervention in ensuring the quality of prasad offered at religious establishments across the country, observing that the prayers sought fell in the domain of policy of the State.
The Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation praying for a writ to the Union and state governments to ensure that the prasad or bhog offered at religious establishments is quality tested before it is offered to maintain its purity.
The petition also sought a direction to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to formulate rules for random sampling and testing of food items of ingredients used to make prasad or religious food offerings.
"Why only restricting it to prasadam? File it for food in hotels, food items that we purchase from the grocery (stores). There may also be adulteration there," the Bench remarked during the course of the hearing.
Dismissing the petition without an extensive hearing, a two-Judge Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan said, "We are not inclined to entertain the present petition in as much as the prayers made in the petition are within the domain of policy of the State." The Bench added the Petitioner was free to make an application to the "appropriate authority," which may consider it in accordance with law.
The petition, filed by Preeti Harihara Mahapatra, who claims to be a social worker, and drafted by Advocate Shantanu Kumar, contends that adulteration of food offered at religious establishments not only poses a serious public health risk, but also injures religious sentiments.
It was argued that the issue raises two substantial questions of law: one, whether adulteration of food at religious places infringes rights under Articles 25 and 26 and two, whether such adulteration infringes the implied right to health under Article 21. In support of this, the petition argues that offering food to deities, which is then considered blessed and is distributed among devotees, is an essential practice of Hindu religion.
An initiative by the FSSAI called 'BHOG', or Blissful Hygienic Offering to God, aims to improve the hygiene and sanitation practices at place of worship, the petition notes, but laments that these guidelines are are only voluntary in nature.
Shantanu Kumar argued that it was not his case that temples were at fault as they lack the wherewithal to check the quality of supplies. He said though FSSAI had powers, its guidelines lacked teeth.
The Supreme Court's observations in Swami Achyutanand Tirth v. Union of India (2016) were cited, where the Court had laid down a list of guidelines to check food adulteration, specifically the adulteration of dairy products.
The petition says that multiple instances have come to light in the recent past of such adulteration, including the controversy around the use of animal fat for making ladoos at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam in Andhra Pradesh, which "raised serious questions about not only the assaults on the faith but also on the health."
Cause Title: Preeti Harihara Mahapatra v. Union of India [W.P.(C) 780/2024 PIL-W]
