Separate enforceable junk food norms from suggestive: HC

A division bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Pradeep Nandrajog sought responses, within two weeks, from the different stakeholders on these guidelines and asked advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul — the amicus curiae in the case — to segregate ‘enforceable’ portions from those that were “suggestive” in these guidelines.

The bench asked Kaul to submit his report within three weeks. Kaul noted that while “some good work has been done in last three-and-half years by the panel and others”, the real issue that remained was one of implementation.

But these guidelines have also come under scrutiny. Environmentalist Sunita Narain — who was a part of the expert group formed by the High Court for the framing of these guidelines — had alleged that the original guidelines were “diluted” to serve the interests of the food industry.

Instead of proposing a complete ban of junk food, as proposed by the working group, the draft guidelines had recommended “restricting/limited availability of junk food” in schools and within a 50-metre radius of schools.

The draft guidelines had also noted that children were “the best judge of their food choice” and had visualised a large role for schools to “promote healthy, wholesome and nutritious foods…”.

The panel has also suggested that a canteen policy to provide nutritious food in schools be developed to ensure that such canteens are not treated as “commercial outlets”. The matter has now been posted for further hearing to August 6.