Food safety is not only about writing regulations. It is about ensuring that the entire system — from sampling to testing to enforcement — works with credibility, consistency and accountability.
The recent notice issued by the Supreme Court to the Centre and FSSAI on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking stronger food safety enforcement has brought back an important conversation: Is India’s food safety framework strong enough in practice?
A division bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the notice while hearing a petition filed by Mumbai-based IVF specialist Dr. Aniruddha Malpani. The plea contends that the current statutory framework treats food safety violations as a mere “cost of doing business” for large corporations rather than a legal deterrent.
The petition argues that while India’s food safety legislation structurally mirrors global criteria, institutional enforcement remains critically weak. It highlights a disproportionate penalty layout that fails to hold large-scale commercial players accountable:
- Inadequate Financial Deterrents: Fixed monetary penalties are currently capped at just ₹5 lakh for sub-standard food items and ₹3 lakh for misbranding.
- Lack of Proportionality: The plea states that these static caps bear no rational nexus to the financial capacity or revenue scale of multinational food business operators (FBOs).
- Violation of Statutory Principles: The petition claims the current structure ignores Section 49 of the Act, which mandates that punishments must factor in unfair financial gains, recurring offenses, and systemic damage caused to consumers.
Citing official data presented before the Rajya Sabha on March 13, 2026, the petitioner exposed a massive human resource deficit in India’s food safety monitoring apparatus. Currently, only 2,997 Food Safety Officers are deployed against a sanctioned strength of 4,208 posts nationwide.
The PIL highlights that while the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has been designed on internationally accepted principles, the effectiveness of the system depends on implementation on the ground.
Some of the key concerns raised include:
1. Are penalties strong enough to create deterrence?
The petition argues that fixed monetary penalties may not create sufficient deterrence for large food businesses, especially when violations can become a small cost compared to business revenues. It has suggested a move towards turnover-linked penalties and stronger accountability mechanisms.
For a food business, safety cannot be treated as a compliance expense. It must remain a non-negotiable responsibility towards consumers.
2. Enforcement capacity remains a critical challenge
A food safety law is only as effective as its last-mile implementation. The PIL has highlighted gaps related to shortage of Food Safety Officers, laboratory infrastructure, delays in adjudication and recovery of penalties.
The regulator has a difficult task — millions of food businesses, diverse supply chains and a rapidly evolving food ecosystem require not only manpower but also technology-enabled monitoring.
3. The credibility of testing systems is equally important
Food testing is the backbone of consumer confidence. A regulatory decision based on incorrect, inconsistent or poorly validated testing can harm both consumers and genuine food businesses.
While the country needs strict action against adulteration, it also needs continuous strengthening of laboratory capabilities, method validation, proficiency testing and scientific transparency.
A system where every stakeholder trusts the test result is essential for a mature food safety ecosystem.
4. Nationwide Audit Demand
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta have asked the government to explain why an independent, nationwide performance audit of the FSSAI should not be conducted.
5. Transparency in sampling and enforcement can strengthen trust
Globally, regulators are increasingly moving towards technology-enabled traceability and surveillance.
India has also explored technology-based monitoring approaches, including proposals around recording food sampling activities to improve transparency during inspections. Such innovations, if implemented with proper safeguards, can help create greater confidence among consumers, honest businesses and enforcement teams.
The objective should not be to create fear among field officers, but to ensure that every sampling action is scientifically robust, transparent and defensible.
6. Food safety requires institutional reform, not only inspections
The future of food safety lies in moving from a reactive inspection model to a preventive assurance system.
Better laboratories, digital surveillance, risk-based sampling, trained manpower, transparent processes and accountability at every stage will determine whether India can build a world-class food safety ecosystem.
The Supreme Court’s intervention provides an opportunity to strengthen the system — not only through stricter penalties but through improving the entire chain of trust from farm to consumer.
Because ultimately, food safety is not just a regulatory requirement.
It is a public health responsibility.
Source : Dairynews7x7 June 6th 2026 First published here
#FoodSafety #FSSAI #ConsumerHealth