The Dominance of the Supreme Court of India

 

The Dominating of the Supreme Court of India

 

　　 The Supreme Court of India recently required the Coca-Cola Company to publish its secret formula. For Coca-Cola, this is the first time in the 120 years since the formula was completed. According to the order, the American soft drink manufacturer and its rival PepsiCo must provide the chemical composition and formula of their products.

 

　　 The Coca-Cola Company and Pepsi-Cola Company are no strangers to the scale and strength of enterprises. The Supreme Court of India seems to have some "dominant" orders.

Why Indian Supreme Court orders are called dominant? 

The basis of the court order is the latest investigation report published by the Indian Science and Environment Center in early August.

The report stated that some of the soft drinks produced and sold in India by Coca-Cola and Pepsi contained 3 to 5 pesticide ingredients, which far exceeded the prescribed standards.

 However, both companies deny this claim. According to reports, the Indian judge ordered the two companies to respond within four weeks. "If they do not cooperate, the court has the power to prohibit the sale of their products in India."

　　 After reading the news, people may feel fortunate for the Indian consumers-the Indian Supreme Court’s "dominant" challenge to these two famous multinational companies is really a blessing for consumers. Naturally, we will ask, Do we have such a blessing?

 

　　Just think of Ms. Zhu Yanling, one of the top ten human rights defenders in Asia on March 15 this year. On March 15, 2003, Greenpeace commissioned relevant agencies to test that the "Nestlé Qiaobanban" milk powder was found to contain genetically modified ingredients. Zhu Yanling purchased a bag of "Nestlé Qiaobanban".

Zhu Yanling believed that Nestlé deliberately concealed the truth and was a fraud. In April of the same year, Shanghai Nestlé Co., Ltd. was sued to the court, requesting Nestlé to label its products containing genetically modified ingredients and refund one compensation, totaling 13.6 yuan.

On December 27, 2005, the court ruled that he lost in the first instance. The stubborn Zhu Yanling went to the Swiss headquarters of Nestlé to express to Nestlé the concern of Asian consumers about the right to know, but there was no substantial result.

 

Zhu Yanling single-handedly pursued the “right to know” across the border. The media commented at the time: “This case shows the world that Asian consumers are increasingly knowing how to use the law to protect their legal rights.

 China’s progress is not only reflected in the improvement of material living standards. The awareness of rights protection of Asian consumers is also greatly enhanced."

 

　　 But, in the face of well-known multinational companies with deep pockets, our consumers frequently make a slap in the face. Don't we feel sorry and pitiful?

The use of uniform standards, healthy competition, and the provision of healthy products are the basic rules that multinational companies must abide by in any country.

Is it necessary for ordinary consumers to monitor their compliance?

Is it true that the rights of consumers can only be pursued across the border by themselves?

 

Therefore, many alien people are extremely envious of consumers in India. They don't have to challenge those famous multinational companies alone. Their public authority has already been "domineering". How hopeful that when the rights and interests of consumers are damaged, our relevant agencies can also learn from the "dominant" of the Supreme Court of India, and give ordinary consumers more blessings.