Saying that the consumer has the right to know what he consumes, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two petitions filed by soft drink giants, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, challenging a Rajasthan high court order asking them to print on containers the extent of pesticide residues in their products.

While dismissing the special leave petitions filed by Pepsi Foods Ltd and Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd, a Bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice D M Dharmadhikari and Justice G P Mathur allowed them to approach the high court with a plea as to what extent they could comply with its directive.

The apex court also suspended implementation of the high court order by two weeks, as the counsels for the two companies -- senior advocates Arun Jaitley and Harish Salve -- said that the print on the containers would read as "the contents may have traces of pesticide which is well below the prescribed standard."

• Soft drinks, hard truths

By the November 3 order, the high court had directed Pespi and Coca-Cola, which account for 99 per cent of the soft drink sales, and all other carbonated beverage manufacturers to disclose the composition and contents of the products, including the presence of pesticides and chemicals, on the bottle, package or container.

The apex court said the entire anxiety of the high court stemmed from public interest and "we do not see anything unreasonable or unconstitutional in the high court order."

The Bench, while asking the two soft drink giants to approach the Rajasthan high court, noted in its order that if their applications regarding the manner in which the pesticide contents were to be displayed on container were not entertained, the manufacturers could approach the Apex Court again.

Right at the beginning of the hearing, Salve contended that no pesticide was added to the soft drink in the manufacturing process.

The pesticide content of the raw material -- water and sugar -- would be reflected in the soft drink, he said and added that extensive use of pesticides in agriculture has resulted in high degree of their presence in sugar.

But the Bench asked, "Why would the consumer not know as to what he is consuming. You can declare in you printline that the sugar used by the soft drink manufacturer contained pesticide."

Jaitley focussed on the aspect of the powers of the high court to pass such an order, saying if the government had passed such an order only against the soft drink industry, it would have been quashed by the courts on the ground of discrimination.

Moreover, directing the manufacturers to disclose the composition would amount to infringement of the right to maintain trade secret, he said.

Salve pitched in by saying that "agriculture in our country is a holy cow and no government would make a law against them even if it is in public knowledge that coffee and tea and even fruit juice contained more pesticide than the soft drinks."