Team code :

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VINIDA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

VINDIA
W. P. NO: /2051

IN THE MATTER OF
……………………….PETITIONERS
v.
..……………………………………………...RESPONDENT WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………...……………………….
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………….….………….…………
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………..…….………………..
QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………….…….….…..………………...
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………….………..…………………...
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS…………..………………..………….………..
PLEADINGS………………….………………………………………………...
I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER
ARTICLE 32, GIVEN THE CONSUMER FORUM’S EXISTING
DIRECTIVE AND ITS SUFFICIENCY IN ADDRESSING PUBLIC
HEALTH CONCERN
II. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE ACCURATE
NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF NUTRIVITA AMOUNTS TO A
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
VINDIAN CONSTITUTION
III. WHETHER THE AMBIGUITY IN THE CONSUMER FORUM’S
DIRECTIVE REGARDING THE DISPLAY OF NUTRITIONAL
INFORMATION ON NUTRIVITA’S PACKAGING HAS ENABLED
VITAWELLS FOOD PVT. LTD. TO EVADE FULL
ACCOUNTABILITY, UNDERMINING CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAWS AND PUBLIC HEALTH SAFEGUARD IN INDIA
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………...
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
W.P Writ petition

NO. /No/no number

S.C.C Supreme court cases

Vs./v. versus

S.C. Supreme court

Art. Article

cl. Clause

Hon’ble Honourable

Q. Question

A.I.R All India Record

Govt. Government

Ref. Reference

Rev. Review

Assn. Association

& And

Pg. Page

Addl. Additional

i.e., That is
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LEGISLATIONS REFFERED –
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF India , 1950.
2.
CASES REFFERED
BOOKS REFFERED
WEBSITIES REFFERED
1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.
2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.
3. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.
5. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS

HONOURABLE COURT UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE
PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN
APPREHENSION OF THE VIOLATION OF RIGHTS THAT INEVITABLY
OCCUR. THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROTECTS
THE CITIZENS OF INDIA FROM ANY VIOLATION OF THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Vindia, a rapidly developing nation in South-East Asia, is characterized by a
young, dynamic population. With the second-largest population in the world,
over 50% of its citizens are below the age of 30, and a substantial portion of this
demographic includes children under the age of 12. Rural and semi-urban areas
of Vindia remain vulnerable to issues such as malnutrition, food insecurity, and
limited access to healthcare.
2. In 1999, Vindia embarked on an ambitious economic liberalization program,
which opened the doors to both domestic and foreign companies entering
various sectors, including Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). This wave
of liberalization coincided with concerns from public health bodies about the
malnutrition crisis, especially among children. Despite rising household
incomes, many families in rural areas struggled to provide nutritious diets for
their children, leading to stunted growth and developmental issues.
3. In response to this nutrition crisis, VitaWells Food Pvt. Ltd.(Hereafter
referred to as Company) a well-established conglomerate in Vindia’s health
food sector, launched NutriVita in 2005. NutriVita was marketed as a malt-
based "health drink" designed specifically for children aged 5-12, targeting
parents seeking affordable yet nutritious food options. Advertisements for
NutriVita were omnipresent across television, billboards, and print media. The
product claimed to support both physical and cognitive development, with
promises of enhanced energy, immunity, and concentration.
4. NutriVita’s key ingredients included malt extracts, milk solids, sugar, and
several artificial additives. Over the years, aggressive marketing positioned
NutriVita as a necessity for children’s health, encouraging parents to substitute
traditional dietary supplements with NutriVita. The product was advertised
through celebrity endorsements and school campaigns branding NutriVita as the
premier choice for promoting children's well-being.
5. By 2012, NutriVita had captured a significant portion of the malt-based
health drink market in Vindia. VitaWells’ expansive reach enabled the product
to penetrate urban, semi-urban, and rural markets alike. Many families began to
rely heavily on NutriVita 2 as a dietary supplement, especially in rural areas
where it was seen as an affordable alternative to more expensive and nutrient-
rich food products.
6. However, by 2021, a disturbing trend began to emerge. Public health
officials, alongside medical experts, observed a rise in childhood obesity, early
onset diabetes, and hypertension among children in the 5-12 age group—the
very demographic that consumed NutriVita regularly.The report highlighted that
NutriVita contained excessive sugar and artificial additives, which were not
clearly disclosed on its packaging. While VitaWells advertised NutriVita as a
healthy and nutritious drink,
7. Medical professionals raised concerns about the long-term health effects of
the artificial additives used in the drink.
8. As a result, public outcry erupted. Parents felt deceived by the misleading
health claims, and child health advocates demanded immediate action. The
media picked up the story, further fuelling nationwide debate about food safety,
children’s health, and corporate responsibility.
9. Amidst growing pressure, the National Commission for Protection of Child
Rights (NCPCR), a statutory body established under the Commission for
Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (CPCR Act), initiated an investigation into
the marketing and safety of NutriVita. Under Section 14 of the CPCR Act, the
NCPCR has the power to inquire into violations of children’s rights and
recommend actions. The Commission expressed concerns about NutriVita being
marketed as a "health drink," especially in the absence of a legal definition or
standards for such products under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(FSS Act, 2006).
10. Simultaneously, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of Vindia
(FSSAV), the statutory body tasked with ensuring food safety, launched its own
inquiry. Following a thorough review, the FSSAV concluded that NutriVita’s
packaging and marketing were misleading and in violation of food safety laws.
FSSAV clarified that there was no legally recognized definition of "health
drink" under the FSS Act, 2006, and NutriVita’s marketing claims lacked
sufficient scientific evidence. The FSSAV also pointed out that NutriVita’s
packaging failed to disclose key nutritional information, including the high
sugar content and the presence of artificial additives. 3
11. After the inquiry, the State Consumer Forum heard complaints filed by
parents and public health bodies against VitaWells. The Forum issued a
directive in mid-2023, ordering VitaWells to disclose the nutritional value of
NutriVita on its packaging and to pay a substantial fine for misleading
advertising. However, the Forum’s directive was criticized for being ambiguous,
particularly concerning the specific nutritional information required. Upon
reviewing the submissions and the issues raised regarding VitaWells Food Pvt.
Ltd.’s product, NutriVita, the Forum directs as follows: i. ii. VitaWells Food Pvt.
Ltd. is ordered to pay an appropriate penalty for its failure to meet acceptable
standards in packaging and advertising. The amount of this penalty is to be
determined and settled accordingly. VitaWells must ensure that NutriVita's
packaging contains clearer nutritional information, especially regarding sugar
content and other additives, within a reasonable time frame. iii. The company is
advised to modify its marketing materials and ensure that any health-related
claims align with scientific standards and regulatory guidelines. iv. The
company is expected to comply with these directives and implement the
necessary changes in due course, subject to oversight by the relevant regulatory
authority.
12. This lack of clarity allegedly allowed the company to continue omitting
certain details while minimally complying with the order.
13. The NGO, Children’s Health Foundation (CHF) an NGO dedicated to
protecting children’s health, filed the Writ petition directly in the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Vindian Constitution, arguing that VitaWells’ failure to
adequately disclose the nutritional content of NutriVita violates the Right to
Life (Article 21) of children.
14. NutriVita is distributed and consumed across Vindia, making the issue a
matter of national importance rather than a localized dispute. The petitioners
argued that only the Supreme Court, with its authority to issue directives
applicable nationwide, could ensure consistent application of the law across
different states. 4
15. The case involves a significant legal question regarding corporate
responsibility in ensuring transparency when marketing products to vulnerable
populations. Given the national scope of the product’s reach and the public
health implications, it was deemed a matter of public importance, meriting the
attention of the Supreme Court to set a legal precedent.
16. The petitioners further argued that the Consumer Forum’s directive was
vague and ambiguous, allowing VitaWells to comply superficially without
genuinely adhering to the spirit of the order. This ambiguity has broader
implications for consumer rights, particularly under the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, and thus necessitated the intervention of the apex court for a
definitive interpretation
 ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32, given the
Consumer Forum’s existing directive and its sufficiency in addressing public
health concerns
2) Whether the failure to disclose the accurate nutritional content of NutriVita
amounts to a violation of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Vindian
Constitution
3) Whether the ambiguity in the Consumer Forum’s directive regarding the
display of nutritional information on NutriVita’s packaging has enabled
VitaWells Food Pvt. Ltd. to evade full accountability, undermining Consumer
protection laws and Public health safeguard in India?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
PLEADINGS
PRAYER