GWALIOR: The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the state government to submit a comprehensive compliance status report. This order addresses the implementation of the court’s 13-year-old directives aimed at curbing the illegal sale and rampant misuse of the hormone oxytocin.
High Court Demands Status Report
Hearing a contempt petition alleging administrative failure to enforce the restrictions, a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Seth ordered the government advocate to seek immediate instructions from the state.
The Order: The court ordered that a copy of the contempt petition be served to the government advocate within three working days.
Timeline: The state government must submit its official status report detailing active field compliance within four weeks, after which the court will resume hearings.
The 2013 Landmark Judgment
The current legal intervention stems from a landmark Public Interest Litigation (PIL) judgment passed on September 6, 2013. The original petition, moved by advocate V.P. Singh (Vijay Pratap Singh Rajawat), had raised serious alarm over public health hazards linked to the unregulated distribution of hormonal injections.
In its 2013 verdict, the High Court issued clear mandates to regulate the hormone:
Prescription Only: Oxytocin can strictly be purchased only via a prescription issued by a registered medical practitioner or a licensed veterinary doctor.
Agricultural Ban: The hormone cannot be used to artificially enlarge the size or weight of vegetables and fruits (such as bottle gourds, watermelons, and pumpkins).
Poultry Restrictions: The administration of oxytocin to induce rapid, unnatural growth in chickens and poultry farm chicks remains completely prohibited.
Allegations of Enforcement Failure
According to the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Awadhesh Singh Tomar, the state machinery has failed to restrict open-market availability. The plea notes that local vendors and commercial farms continue to exploit the drug. This open exploitation circumvents the Food Safety and Standards Act guidelines, despite previous notices served to top state officials, including the Principal Secretary of Health.
During the primary proceedings, the Union Government clarified that while macro-policies exist, the ground-level enforcement of these food safety bans falls entirely on individual state administrations.
