'FSSAI Is There' : Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Court-Monitored Committee To Enforce Food Safety Standards
The Court stated that Article 32 cannot be used to take over the fucntions of statutory bodies.
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking court-monitored effective compliance with food safety enforcement measures across the country by constituting a National Task Force. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the PIL that raised the issues of unsafe and unhygienic food being provided to the citizens of the...
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking court-monitored effective compliance with food safety enforcement measures across the country by constituting a National Task Force.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the PIL that raised the issues of unsafe and unhygienic food being provided to the citizens of the country. To support, the petitioner, Dr KA Paul, had relied on several newspaper reports highlighting instances of alleged unhygienic and unsafe food dispensation to the affected people.
The Court found the PIL to be lacking credible evidence of non-compliance with food safety measures to seek the Court's interference. It added that merely relying on newspaper reports would not justify judicial scrutiny unless corroborated by independent and reliable data.
Further, the Court reasoned that when under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, a specialised, multi-disciplinary body called Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was established to regulate a food sector, it was not open for the Court “to substitute its own wisdom for that of the statutory regulator, nor can it assume the role of a super-regulator in the absence of any demonstrated, systemic failure of the existing machinery.”
The Court pointed out that Article 32 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to undertake supervisory or managerial functions over a statutory forum.
“…it is not for this Court to substitute its own wisdom for that of the statutory regulator, nor can it assume the role of a super-regulator in the absence of any demonstrated, systemic failure of the existing machinery. The jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is primarily concerned with enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be expanded to undertake supervisory or managerial functions over statutory fora, particularly in highly technical domains such as food safety regulation.”
“The petitioner has failed to place any empirical data or cogent material on record to satisfy this Court that the enforcement of the Act of 2006 is slack or wanting in any substantial manner. Few stray instances of non-compliance, do not constitute sufficient ground for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing an overhaul of a functioning regulatory framework.”, the court added.
Resultantly, the PIL was dismissed.
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Maintainability of PIL based on media reports – Judicial Restraint – Separation of Powers - Public Interest Litigation – Requirements of Credible Material – Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the constitution of a National Task Force and a nationwide food safety audit based on various instances of food contamination and regulatory failure - Held: PILs must be founded on credible, cogent, and research-based material - Newspaper reports and media publications highlighting sporadic incidents do not constitute reliable or legally admissible evidence to establish a systemic failure of fundamental rights under Article 32. [Paras 5, 6]
Judicial Restraint vs. Statutory Regulators – The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is a complete code that established the FSSAI as a specialized body for food safety regulation - When the legislature creates a specialized authority with technical expertise, the Court must exercise judicial restraint. In the absence of demonstrated systemic failure, the Court cannot assume the role of a "super regulator" or substitute its wisdom for that of the statutory body - Article 32 jurisdiction cannot be expanded to undertake supervisory or managerial functions over statutory fora in technical domains - Intervention in the functioning of a regulatory framework without compelling material runs contrary to the settled principles of separation of powers - Stray instances of non-compliance do not justify a court-directed overhaul of an existing legal machinery. [Relied on Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Ors., (2007) 14 SCC 281; Kushum Lata v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 180; Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 4 SCC 115; Paras 7- 9]
Cause Title: DR. K.A. PAUL @ KILARI ANAND PAUL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 355
Petitioner-in-person argued for himself