“No Doubt Mother’s Milk Is Best For Infants”: Orissa High Court On PIL Against Milk Substitutes

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation concerning the indiscriminate use of milk powder supplements for infants, expressing trust that the State would implement the existing statutory framework and take action against violators, rather than issuing any specific mandamus.

A Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, while noting that the writ petition filed by Subrata Kumar Sahoo was “not happily drafted” and lacked the material ordinarily required to issue a writ of mandamus, held that it should not be dismissed in limine, since it raised a vital aspect that deserved to be brought to the notice of the Government even though not lucidly pleaded.

The petition flagged concerns over the unchecked use of infant milk substitutes despite the existence of the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992, which was enacted to regulate the production, supply and distribution of such substitutes and feeding bottles so as to promote breastfeeding as the natural source of sustenance for infants. 

The petitioner contended that the milk supplement was being used indiscriminately across the State and was readily available in every corner, despite the Act’s regulatory mandate.

The Court observed that while there could be no debate that mother’s milk remains the best food for a neonatal or infant child, there may be situations where a supplement becomes necessary for the child’s survival, and that the use of such supplements ought to be regulated rather than allowed unchecked. 

It noted that the 1992 Act already contains exhaustive provisions covering various aspects relating to milk supplements, including prohibitions on advertising and requirements for information to be printed on containers and packets sold in the market, with the underlying objective of curbing indiscriminate advertisement, publication, distribution and sale that could undermine breastfeeding.

However, the Court noted that no material had been placed on record corroborating the petitioner’s claim of indiscriminate availability of the supplement across the State. Observing that the Act’s provisions, if properly enforced, were sufficient to address the concern raised, the Court expressed trust and hope that the State would give practical effect to every provision of the Act and take possible steps against violators if the situation so arose.

Holding that it would be an “idle exercise” to keep the petition pending any further, the Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, without issuing any specific directions to the State.

Case Title: Subrata Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No. 15269 of 2026