Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Trial in Amul ‘Unsafe Milk’ Case

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against representatives of the Banaskantha District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Ltd, associated with the Amul brand. The court ruled that allegations concerning public health and food safety must be subjected to trial and cannot be bypassed through commercial or procedural arguments.

Information was available with The Chenab Times that Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal’s bench rejected the plea challenging proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Shopian. The court also vacated interim stay orders that had been in place since April 2022, directing the trial court to expedite the complaint and conclude proceedings, preferably within six months.

The legal challenge originated from a sample of “Amul Taza Homogenized Toned Milk” collected by a Food Safety Officer in Shopian. Initial laboratory analysis by the Food Analyst, Kashmir Division, had declared the milk sample to be of standard quality. However, the Designated Officer noted that critical safety parameters, including tests for antibiotic residues, pesticide residues, and heavy metals, had not been examined.

Following this observation, the Designated Officer, after documenting reasons, referred the second portion of the sample to the Referral Food Laboratory at the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) in Anand, Gujarat. This referral laboratory subsequently declared the milk sample as “unsafe” in accordance with the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act.

Representatives of the milk producers’ union, including its Managing Director and quality control nominee, had approached the High Court seeking the dismissal of the complaint and the cognizance order issued by the CJM Shopian. Their arguments included claims that the sample referral to the Referral Laboratory occurred without a prior hearing and that mandatory legal procedures were not adhered to.

The High Court rejected these contentions, affirming that Rule 2.4.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, grants the Designated Officer the authority to refer samples for further examination after providing written reasons, particularly if an initial report seems incomplete or erroneous. The court found that such reasons were indeed recorded in this instance.

Justice Nargal emphasized that the Referral Laboratory serves as the ultimate statutory scientific authority. Once its report is received, the findings of the earlier analyst become secondary. The court viewed the subsequent report not as contradictory but as a conclusive scientific determination under the law.

In significant remarks on consumer protection, the court highlighted the gravity of allegations involving milk products, which are widely consumed by vulnerable populations. “This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that public health is of paramount importance and must prevail over private commercial interests,” the judgment stated. The court further elaborated that once the statutory Referral Laboratory declared the sample unsafe, the issue transcended a private dispute and became a matter directly impacting public health and safety.

Justice Nargal also dismissed the argument that the Managing Director possessed blanket immunity under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act. The court determined that questions concerning responsibility, knowledge, or negligence would necessitate evidence and could only be properly examined during the trial.

Declining to extend further interim protection, the court acknowledged that proceedings involving serious allegations of unsafe food products had been stalled for years, despite public health concerns. The High Court found prima facie material disclosing offences punishable under Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act and consequently dismissed the petition. Both parties were directed to appear before the CJM Shopian on July 10, 2026.

Advocate Reyaz Ahmad Mir represented the petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali appeared for the Union Territory administration.

---

---

Follow us on

---

(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)