The Karnataka high court issued notices to both the state and central governments in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) against the commercialisation of breast milk by private companies.
The PIL, filed by Bengaluru resident Munegowda, challenged the involvement of private companies in the collection, marketing, and sale of human breast milk.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the division bench, led by chief justice NV Anjaria and justice KV Aravind, addressed concerns presented by Munegowda’s counsel, who argued that companies were profiting from the sale of breast milk, treating it as a commodity under Ayurvedic and naturopathic practices.
The state’s counsel informed the court that the Union government had previously instructed states to revoke licenses for companies marketing breast milk as a form of alternative medicine.
Additional solicitor general Arvind Kamath, representing the Union government, confirmed that the ministry of Ayush had recently directed the Karnataka government to cancel licences permitting the commercial use of breast milk.
“The central government has mandated the state to cancel all such licenses. Some companies had initially received these licences under Ayurvedic norms, which permitted the commercial use of human breast milk. However, the Centre has now intervened, and the state has complied by cancelling some of these licenses. At least one company has already had its license revoked, and it (the company) has since challenged this cancellation in the high court,” Kamath explained.
Kamath requested the court to add the Union ministry of Ayush as a respondent in the case. In response, the bench instructed the petitioner’s advocate to amend the petition accordingly and issued notice to the ministry of Ayush.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s advocate, B Visveswaraiah, brought a 50 ml bottle of packaged breast milk and a 10-gram packet of powdered breast milk to demonstrate the commercial sale of these products, priced at ₹1,239 and ₹313, respectively even till now.
The court also ordered an internal inquiry after a discrepancy on the court’s website incorrectly indicated that a notice had been issued on an earlier date. This error prompted the petitioner’s advocate to pay a fee for notice issuance, believing a notice had been ordered.
The registrar-general was directed to investigate how this error occurred and to determine if the petitioner played any role in the misunderstanding.
