Temple offerings must comply with food safety regulations as defined in law.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

The instant Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(i) call for the records leading to Exhibits P1, P3, P4 and P6 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(ii) declare that the provisions contained in Legal Metrology Act , 2009 and Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006 does not apply to prasadam/ offering in a temple/ religious institutions;

(iii) direct respondents 7 and 8 to close the proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibits P1, P3, P4 and P6;

2. The 1st petitioner herein is the Cochin Devaswom Board, a statutory body constituted under Section 62 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The petitioners state that the Chottanikkara Bhagavathy Temple is one of the most popular shrines under the 1^st petitioner, Cochin Devaswom Board. ‘Neypayasam’ is one among the nivedya ‘vazhipadu’ of the Temple. It is submitted that prasadam refers to something sacred returned to the devotees after conducting the naivedya or poojas.

3. The petitioners submitted that respondents 7 and 8 have issued a show cause notice to the 2^nd petitioner, the Manager of the Temple, alleging the violation of the provisions of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 (‘FSS Act, 2006’ for the sake of brevity) and Legal Metrology Act , 2009 with regard to the distribution of prasadam.

4. The petitioners further submitted that the 8^th respondent has issued Ext.P1 notice alleging that, during the inspection, it was detected that special ghee payasam was sold in a container without an invoice specifying the quantity, MRP, date of packing, date of expiry and such other details and would tantamount to violation of Rule 6 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, punishable under Rule 32 of the said Rule. The Inspector seized one of the containers and issued Ext.P1 show cause notice as to why prosecution should not be initiated.

5. Even though the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply to the show cause notice, the 8^th respondent issued another show cause notice dated

17.05.2024. Ext.P3 is the true copy of the said notice.

6. The petitioners further submitted that the 7^th respondent, Food and Safety Officer, has also issued Ext.P4 notice alleging that Neypayasam is prepared and distributed in violation of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 and Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018. The petitioners have produced a true copy of the said notice as Ext.P4. The Devaswom Commissioner issued Ext.P5 order authorizing the 2nd petitioner to give a reply to the 7th respondent since the offerings/prasadam of a temple cannot be considered as a food item under Food Safety and Standards Packing Regulations 2018 and Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations 2018. The petitioners further stated that after Ext.P5, the 7^th respondent issued Ext.P6 communication with a direction to the 2^nd petitioner to prepare the Neypayasam in terms of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display)

Regulations, 2020.

7. The 2^nd respondent, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FSSAI’), has filed a counter affidavit contending that the FSSAI regulates food manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure safe and wholesome food for human consumption. In the implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act , 2006, the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 and various other regulations have been framed. Every place of worship where food is se