33 South Africa, a group of individuals and organizations representing fishermen filed a case claiming that the Government had failed to provide them fair access to fishing rights which resulted in the violation of a number of basic socio-economic rights, most notably the right to food. In 2008, the High Court issued an order that the policy framework developed by the Government on the allocation of fishing rights must accommodate the socio-economic rights of artisanal fishers and ensure their equitable access to marine resources, based on South Africa’s international and national legal obligations.99 In 2008, the Supreme Court of Nepal in the case of Prokash Moni Sharma delivered a verdict in favour of the right to food in view of chronic food insecurity in the country.100 Given the deplorable conditions of food safety in Bangladesh, some PIL cases had been filed to protect the rights of consumers. BLAST vs. Bangladesh101 is one of the important of such cases. This case was concerned with the sale of edible salt without or inadequate iodine contents, which affects the ordinary people of this country causing Cretinism and Goitre, two deadly diseases. In this case, the Rule was issued upon the respondent (a) to take necessary steps and action to ensure that all licensed manufacturers of salt do produce, pack and sell salt with Iodine content conforming with the quality and standard as specified in the Iodine Diseases Prevention Act, 1989; (b) to revoke licences and take action against respondent and other manufacturers of iodized salt, those failed to comply with the provisions as enumerated in the said Act; and (c) to identify the unlicensed and fake manufacturers of edible salt and to take action against those manufacturers as per provisions of the Act. It was found by the court that the iodine content in the salt samples were not up to the requirement and that the packaging were not as per requirements of the Act and the Rules; but those salt are being marketed without any check and control by the respondents. The court directed the respondents to perform their respective functions ensuring compliance of the provisions of the Iodine Deficiency Diseases Prevention Act, 1989 and the Rules 1994 so that the iodized salt produced and marketed for consumption of the people do comply with the provisions of the Act, 1989. 20. Recommendations 99 Fact Sheet 34 Dr. Mizanur Rahman, ‘Food, Human Rights and State’, CSRL, 101 Writ petition no. 1043 of 1999 100 Dhaka, 2011.