2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5844

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ, Tejas Karia, J
Godrej Agrovet Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Food Safety And Standards Authority Of India & Anr. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1079/2025 & CM APPL. 5331/2025

Subordinate legislation under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 cannot regulate animal feed, as the Act is limited to food for human consumption, and cannot make voluntary BIS standards mandatory without a specific order from the Central Government.

Headnote:(A) Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 - Sections 3(1)(j), 16, 92, 97 - Constitution of India - Article 226, Seventh Schedule List II Entry 15 - Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 - Sections 16, 25 - Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018 - Rule 24 - Challenge to validity of Note (c) appended to Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, substituted by the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Fifth Amendment Regulations, 2021 - Challenge also to directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 issued under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2006.

(B) Delegated/Subordinate Legislation - Validity - Tests for - Subordinate legislation must function within the purview of the enabling Act and cannot travel beyond its scope - The rule-making body derives power only from the statute and must necessarily function within its purview - If it does so, it is ultra vires. (Paras 38, 43, 44)

(C) Delegated Legislation - Grounds of challenge - Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds of lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, violation of the Constitution, failure to conform to the statute under which it is made, repugnancy to other laws, and manifest arbitrariness. (Para 40)

(D) Interpretation of Statutes - Generality vs. Enumeration - Where a statute confers particular powers without prejudice to the generality of a general power, the particular powers are only illustrative and do not restrict the general power - However, the general power cannot be exercised to bring into existence substantive rights or obligations not contemplated by the Act itself. (Paras 46, 47)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing of animal feed, challenged Note (c) of Regulation 2.5.2 of the Principal Regulations (substituted by the Amending Regulations). The impugned Note (c) mandated that milk and meat producing animals (excluding poultry, pig and fish) shall not be fed with feed containing meat or bone meal, internal organs, blood meal and tissues of bovine or porcine origin. It also mandated that commercial feeds shall comply with BIS standards and carry the BIS certification mark. The petitioner also challenged directions issued under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2006 which required commercial feeds to comply with BIS standards. The respondents argued that the Act empowers the Food Authority to regulate food safety, and the impugned regulation was issued to address concerns related to animal feed.

Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Note (c) of Regulation 2.5.2 is ultra vires the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006? 2. Whether the Food Authority could mandate compliance with BIS standards for commercial feeds without a notification under the BIS Act? 3. Whether the direction dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 are within the competence of the Food Authority?

Findings of Court:
The definition of 'food' under Section 3(1)(j) of the Act, 2006 explicitly excludes animal feed. The entire scheme of the Act is for regulating food for human consumption. The impugned Note (c) regulates cattle feed/animal feed, which is outside the scope of the Act. The regulation-making power under Section 92(2)(e) specifically refers to 'food meant for human consumption', which does not permit regulation of cattle feed. Under the BIS Act, 2016 and Rules, 2018, Indian Standards are voluntary, and can only be made binding by a specific order of the Central Government, which the respondents failed to produce. The directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 issued under Section 16(5) also relate to cattle feed and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Note (c) to Regulation 2.5.2, which regulates cattle feed/animal feed, and the directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 mandating BIS compliance for commercial feeds, are ultra vires the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as the Act is concerned only with food for human consumption and does not empower the Food Authority to regulate animal feed. Further, the requirement to comply with BIS standards cannot be made mandatory without a specific order from the Central Government under the BIS Act.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Note (c) appended to Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, and the directives dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 were quashed.