- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Seeks FSSAI’s Response on PIL for Mandatory QR Codes on Medicines, Cosmetics & Food Products
Delhi High Court Seeks FSSAI’s Response on PIL for Mandatory QR Codes on Medicines, Cosmetics & Food Products
The Delhi High Court by its division judge’s bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad issued notice to the Central Government, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Drugs Technical Advisory Board on the petition filed by the Kapila and Nirmal Hingorani Foundation seeking Mandatory QR Code feature on all medicines, food products and cosmetics so that their information can be converted from text to speech for the visually impaired people.
The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition by the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), The Kapila & Nirmal Hingorani Foundation and Delhi University Professors, Dr Smriti Singh and Shobhan Singh.
Advocates Aman Hingorani and Shweta Hingorani, representing the petitioners, contended that a smartphone with accessibility feature can scan the Quick Response (QR) code containing requisite information about the product and then convert the same to speech format for the benefit of the visually impaired.
The Court was also informed that last year, the Centre mandated the affixing of Bar Code or QR code containing certain information on specified medicinal products and the same showed that desirability, feasibility and the capability of the authorities to provide for the affixation of QR codes on products.
In the petition, the petitioners stated that employing QR codes would increase the efficacy of medical care for visually impaired patients by reducing medication errors, incorrect dosages, unintended drug interactions and side effects as well as combat the growing menace of counterfeit and substandard medicine.
These problems deteriorated during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and the continued to be deficient in providing effective access to medicines, food, cosmetics and other consumer products.
The petition added that visually impaired persons have the constitutional and fundamental right to equality, life with dignity under Article 21 as well as their statutory rights under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and there was a huge scope for utilising the capabilities of smartphones along with QR codes to help them identify products and access all relevant product information.
“In order to secure effective access to medicines, food, cosmetics and other consumer products, it has become imperative and expedient to affix Quick Response (QR) codes in a proper manner and containing the requisite information so that a smartphone with accessibility feature could then scan the QR Code with its stored data or information about the particular product, and decode it to convert the text to speech format of the application,” the petition said.
The petition prayed for directions to the Centre to secure effective access for visually impaired persons to medicines, food, cosmetics and other consumer products by taking comprehensive measures on affixing QR codes on such products.
The plea read, “Comprehensive measures or guidelines on the affixing of QR codes on medicines, food, cosmetics and other consumer products simply do not exist in the country. The respondent authorities have, to the best knowledge of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, failed to take comprehensive measures or frame comprehensive guidelines in this regard.”
In view of the same, the bench directed the authorities to file their response to the plea and posted the case for further hearing on 16th August, 2023.