Delhi High Court Delivers Knockout Blow to FSSAI's Animal Feed Overreach

In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) cannot extend its regulatory tentacles to animal or cattle feed. A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia allowed Godrej Agrovets Ltd 's writ petition , quashing a controversial note in FSSAI regulations and related directives. The court held these measures ultra vires the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 , whose scope is strictly limited to food for human consumption .

From Meat Regulations to Feed Fiasco: The Dispute Unfolds

Godrej Agrovets Ltd , a major player in animal feed manufacturing, challenged Note (c) added to Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 via the 2021 Fifth Amendment. This note barred milk and meat-producing animals (excluding poultry, pigs, and fish) from feeds containing meat or bone meal, internal organs, blood meal, or tissues of bovine/porcine origin—except milk products. It also mandated commercial feeds comply with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and carry certification marks.

The petition also targeted FSSAI directions from 2019 , 2020 , and 2021 under Section 16(5) of the Act , enforcing BIS compliance for cattle feeds with phased timelines up to July 2021 . These stemmed from concerns over dairy imports and animal health, but Godrej argued they strayed beyond FSSAI's mandate. The regulations took effect post-gazette publication, with compliance due by June 2022 .

Petitioner's Arsenal: Ultra Vires at Every Turn

Godrej, represented by Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan , fired on multiple fronts. The Act's long title and Section 3(1)(j) define "food" explicitly for human consumption , excluding animal feed. Duties under Section 16 and regulation powers under Section 92(2)(e) cannot regulate cattle feed, they contended—doing so indirectly achieves what direct amendment couldn't.

Mandating voluntary BIS standards without Central Government notification under Section 16 of the BIS Act, 2016 violated law, as Rule 24 of BIS Rules deems them voluntary absent specific orders. Entry 15 of List II (State List) reserves livestock protection for states, not FSSAI. Directions under Section 16(5) similarly overreached, lacking competence over non-human food.

FSSAI's Defense: Public Health Shield

Respondents countered that the Act consolidates food safety for public health, with Section 16 empowering standards and labeling. A 2019 Department of Animal Husbandry letter flagged import risks from contaminated dairy, prompting directions as interim measures. The impugned note followed public consultation (with no objections from Godrej), aiming to safeguard the food chain. BIS compliance for cattle feed (per IS 2052:2023) was already mandatory, they claimed via RTI replies and website data.

Judicial Scalpel: Carving Out the Act's True Boundaries

The Bench dissected the Act's scheme, drawing from Supreme Court precedents like State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006) on ultra vires tests—lack of competence, inconsistency with parent statute, or manifest arbitrariness . In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph (2023), delegated legislation must stay within the parent Act. Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. ICAI (2024) applied the "generality vs. enumeration" principle: even general powers under Section 92(1) cannot exceed the Act's human-food focus.

The court rejected stretching "food" to animal feed, noting exclusions in Section 3(1)(j) . Note (c) directly regulates livestock feed, outside FSSAI's purview. BIS mandates failed without Section 16 BIS Act notification—no such order surfaced despite claims. Directions under Section 16(5) bind only on human food safety. Even FSSAI's 2019 direction admitted needing Act amendments for feed rules.

As news reports echoed, the ruling clarifies FSSAI's limits, potentially freeing the feed industry while spotlighting gaps in animal feed regulation.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The very scheme of the Act is such that the provisions therein can be put to service only to regulate the food for human consumption and not the feed for the use of cattle or animals."

"Any Regulation made by the Food Authority regulating cattle feed or animal feed would travel beyond the scope of the Act, 2006, which is the enabling Legislation."

"Indian Standards are voluntary and their implementation depends on adoption by concerned parties" unless mandated by Central Government order under BIS laws.

"The delegated Legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent Act."

Victory for Godrej, Roadmap for Regulators

The writ petition succeeded: Note (c) to Regulation 2.5.2 stands quashed, alongside the 2019 - 2021 directions. No costs ordered.

This pares back FSSAI's reach, affirming BIS standards remain voluntary for feeds absent proper notifications. Feed makers gain relief from unmandated compliance, but it signals need for targeted legislation—perhaps via BIS Act or state laws under Entry 15. Future cases may test food chain safeguards without overstepping statutory silos.