Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union, FSSAI On Plea Seeking Turnover-Based Penalty For Sale Of Unsafe And Adulterated Food
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Union and the FSSAI on a plea seeking directions to strengthen the penal and enforcement framework under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, contending that the present regime has failed to effectively curb the sale of unsafe and adulterated food products across the country.
“The Act, in its structure, is aligned with internationally accepted food safety standards and scientific benchmarks and is complete in its legislative design; however, the visible gap lies in effective implementation, and in practice the scale and enforcement of monetary penalties often become insignificant when compared to the vast commercial earnings of large food business operators, thereby diluting the intended deterrent effect and reducing the statutory scheme to a largely symbolic presence rather than a continuously operating preventive mechanism”, the petition states.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice in the petition filed by IVF specialist Dr. Aniruddha Malpani.
The petition contends that the penal provisions under Chapter IX of the Food Safety and Standards Act prescribe fixed and inadequate penalties that do not operate as an effective deterrent against large food business operators and multinational corporations.
It argues that violations have effectively become a “cost of doing business” because the statutory penalties are negligible when compared to the turnover and profits of major corporations.
“The statutory penalties bear no rational or proportional nexus to the scale of operations or financial capacity of Food Business Operators, particularly large corporations and multinational entities, thereby reducing non-compliance to a mere cost of doing business; in practical terms, such penalties are negligible when compared to the substantial revenues and earnings of large commercial entities”, the petition states.
The plea states that while Section 49 of the Act contemplates penalties based on factors such as unfair gain, loss caused and repetitive nature of contravention, the framework is rendered ineffective because of rigid monetary caps prescribed in later provisions. The petition points out that the maximum penalty for sub-standard food under Section 51 is Rs. 5 lakh and the maximum penalty for misbranding under Section 52 is Rs. 3 lakh.
The plea contends that the deficiencies in enforcement are reflected in delays in adjudication, large-scale pendency and non-recovery of penalties. It highlights that the 2017 Performance Audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India recorded that around 47% of imposed penalties remained unrecovered and that adjudication proceedings often exceeded statutory timelines.
The petition contends that the existing statutory framework violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to health and access to safe and wholesome food. The petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, in which the Court held that consumption of hazardous food articles poses a direct threat to Article 21 and directed authorities to maintain effective food safety surveillance and enforcement systems.
The petition also contends that there is systemic failure in the functioning of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), including shortage of technical and enforcement personnel, inadequate food testing laboratories, poor surveillance mechanisms and ineffective licensing systems.
The plea cites findings from the CAG audit stating that many laboratories lacked infrastructure to test for pesticides, heavy metals and microbiological contamination and that mandatory tests were not conducted in a substantial number of food samples.
The petition further states that there is a severe shortage of Food Safety Officers across States. It refers to official data placed before the Rajya Sabha on March 13, 2026 showing that only 2,997 Food Safety Officers are presently in position against 4,208 sanctioned posts across the country.
The petition also cites several reported incidents involving alleged adulteration and contamination of food products, including contaminated mid-day meals, adulterated dairy products and unsafe packaged food items. It contends that food safety violations have become widespread across both organised and unorganised sectors.
The petition seeks directions for strengthening the enforcement architecture under the Food Safety and Standards Act, including introduction of proportionate and turnover-linked penalties, improved regulatory monitoring, enhanced laboratory infrastructure, increased manpower and greater public disclosure of violations.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Sankalp Mahindru, Adv. Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Bablu, Adv
Case no. – Diary No. 29847/2026
Case Title – Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India & Ors.