In Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani vs. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has passed an order dated May 27 2026, whereby, it issued notice to Union of India and the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India and Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, returnable within four weeks. The case was filed on May 13 registered on May 21 and verfied on May 25, 2026.
The petition alleges that the existing penal provisions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is ineffective in deterring large food business operators from violating food safety standards, because the prescribed monetary fines are not proportionate to the commercial turnover of such entities. The petition seeks judicial directions for a revised enforcement architecture that incorporates turnover‑based penalties and other systemic improvements.
Notably, Section 97 of the Act has repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the Meat Food Products Order, 1973, the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947, the Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998, the Solvent Extracted Oil, De oiled Meal, and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967, the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 and any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to food.
The key issue raised by the writ petition is about the inadequacy of the penal provisions in Chapter IX of the 2006 Act, specifically Sections 49, 51 and 52.
The petitioner has submitted that the statutory ceiling of Rs 5 lakh for sub‑standard food (Section 51) and Rs 3 lakh for misbranding (Section 52) is grossly insufficient to serve as a deterrent for large corporations whose annual turnovers may run into billions of rupees. It has been submitted that the fixed caps creates a “cost of doing business” rather than a punitive measure, thereby undermining the deterrent purpose envisioned by the legislature. It relies on the Court’s decision in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India 2013 (16) SCC 279, wherein, it was held that consumption of hazardous food directly threatens Article 21 of the Constitution of India and directed the establishment of an effective food‑safety surveillance system.
On October 22, 2013, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Dpak Misra had concluded:"23. Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including right to life and human dignity encompasses, within its ambit availability of articles of food, without insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic residues, solvent residues, etc. But the fact remains, many of the food articles like rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk, fruits available in the market contain insecticides or pesticides residues, beyond the tolerable limits, causing serious health hazards. We notice, fruit based soft drinks available in various fruit stalls, contain such pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but no attention is made to examine its contents. Children and infants are uniquely susceptible to the effects of pesticides because of their physiological immaturity and greater exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise. 24. We, therefore, direct the Food and Safety Standards Authority of India, to gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the States and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain whether they conform to such standards set by the Act and the Rules." The judgement was authored by Justice Radhakrishnan.
The current petition points out systemic failures within the FSSAI. It cites CAG's performance audit report of 2017 which reported a 47 percent recovery rate for imposed penalties and chronic pendency of adjudication proceedings. It refers to data presented to the Rajya Sabha on March 13, 2026, indicating that only 2,997 Food Safety Officers were in post against a sanctioned strength of 4,208. It draws attention towards paucity of laboratory capacity. Many state‑level labs lack the infrastructure to test for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbiological contaminants, leading to incomplete testing of food samples.
It seeks introduction of turnover‑linked penalties that scale with the financial capacity of the offending entity; enhancement of the regulatory monitoring framework; augmentation of laboratory infrastructure; recruitment of additional Food Safety Officers; and greater public disclosure of violations.
The petition also seeks direction from the Court for framing of rules that provide a rational connection between the severity of the violation, the economic gain and the penalty imposed.
