FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006
(1) This Act may be called the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date1 as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision.
----------
1. Sections 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 87, 88, 91, 101 came into force on 15-10-2007, vide S.O. 1758(E), dated 15th October, 2007.
Section 1 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) primarily provides the title, extent, and commencement of the Act, establishing the framework for consolidating food laws in India. It marks the beginning of a comprehensive legislation aimed at ensuring food safety, establishing standards, and regulating the entire food supply chain.
Section 1 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is a pivotal provision that establishes the law’s title, territorial extent, commencement, and its overarching purpose of consolidating food safety laws in India. It signifies a policy shift towards a science-based, uniform, and comprehensive regulatory regime, laying the foundation for subsequent detailed provisions on standards, licensing, enforcement, and penalties. Its broad scope ensures nationwide applicability, providing legal certainty for regulators, industry stakeholders, and consumers alike.
Note: The references are drawn from the provided sources, especially from legal commentaries, case law summaries, and official notifications.
It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the food industry.
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter;
(b) “advertisement” means any audio or visual publicity, representation or pronouncement made by means of any light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, internet or website and includes through any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or other documents;
(c) “Chairperson” means the Chairperson of the Food Authority;
(d) “claim” means any representation which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular qualities relating to its origin, nutritional properties, nature, processing, composition or otherwise;<
Section 3 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) is foundational as it provides the definitions crucial for interpreting the scope and application of the entire statute. It aims to consolidate diverse food-related laws and establish clear standards for food safety, quality, and regulation in India.
Section 3 defines key terms such as "adulterant," "food," "food additive," "manufacture," "import," and others, thereby setting the legal parameters for the application of the Act. It employs an inclusive approach, ensuring that all relevant substances and activities related to food are covered under the Act's ambit.
While Section 3 itself is primarily definitional, violations related to its provisions—such as manufacturing unsafe food, adulteration, or misbranding—are punishable under sections like 57 (penalty for possessing adulterant), 59 (penalty for unsafe food), and others, which prescribe penalties including fines (up to Rs. 3 lakh) and imprisonment (up to 6 months or more) [Source: "United Distributors Incorporation VS Union of India"].
In conclusion, Section 3 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, provides the essential legal foundation by defining key terms with broad and inclusive language. This ensures a comprehensive regulatory framework that adapts to modern food industry practices and facilitates effective enforcement, ultimately protecting consumer health and safety.
(1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish a body to be known as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.
(2) The Food Authority shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract and shall, by the said name, sue or be sued.
(3) The head office of the Food Authority shall be at Delhi.
(4) The Food Authority may establish its offices at any other place in India.
(1) The Food Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and the following twenty-two members out of which one-third shall be women, namely:—
(a) seven Members, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, to be appointed by the Central Government, to respectively represent the Ministries or Departments of the Central Government dealing with—
(i) Agriculture,
(ii) Commerce,
(iii) Consumer Affairs,
(iv) Food Processing,
(v) Health,
(vi) Legislative Affairs,
(vii) Small Scale Industries
(1) The Central Government shall, for the purpose of selection of the Chairperson and the Members other than ex officio Members of the Food Authority, constitute a Selection Committee consisting of—
(a) Cabinet Secretary—Chairperson,
(b) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministry or the Department responsible for administration of this Act as the convener—Member,
(c) Secretary-in-charge of the Ministries or the Departments of the Central Government dealing with 1[Food Processing Industries], Legislative and Personnel—Members,
(d) Chairman of the Public Enterprises Selection Board—Member,
(e) An eminent food technologist to be nominated by the Central Government—Member.
&nbs
(1) The Chairperson and the members other than ex officio Members shall hold office for a term of three years from the date on which they enter upon their offices, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for a further period of three years:
Provided that no Chairperson or a member other than ex officio Member shall hold office as such after he has attained—
(a) in the case of the Chairperson, the age of sixty-five years, and
(b) in the case of a Member, the age of sixty-two years.
(2) The salary and allowances payable to, and the other terms and conditions of service of, the Chairperson and Members other than ex officio Members shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) The C
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 7, the Central Government may, by order, remove from office the Chairperson or any other Member, if the Chairperson or as the case may be, such other Member,—
(a) has been adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a Member; or
(d) has acquired such financial or other interests as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a Member; or
(e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest.
&nbs
(1) There shall be a Chief Executive Officer of the Food Authority, not below the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, who shall be the Member-Secretary of the Authority, to be appointed by the Central Government.
(2) The Food Authority may, with the approval of the Central Government, determine the number, nature and categories of other officers and employees required to the Food Authority in the discharge of its functions.
(3) The salaries and allowances payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Chief Executive Officer, officers and other employees shall be such as may be specified by regulations by the Food Authority with the approval of the Central Government.
(1) The Chief Executive Officer shall be the legal representative of the Food Authority and shall be responsible for—
(a) the day-to-day administration of the Food Authority;
(b) drawing up of proposal for the Food Authority’s work programmes in consultation with the Central Advisory Committee;
(c) implementing the work programmes and the decisions adopted by the Food Authority;
(d) ensuring the provision of appropriate scientific, technical and administrative support for the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panel;
(e) ensuring that the Food Authority carries out its tasks in accordance with the requirements of its users, in particular with regard to the adequacy of the services prov
Section 10 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, delineates the powers and responsibilities of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Food Authority, primarily focusing on the exercise of statutory powers related to food safety, enforcement, and administration. It plays a crucial role in operationalizing the Act by empowering the CEO to act in matters of food safety, including issuing orders, exercising appellate functions, and overseeing enforcement mechanisms.
Section 10(1) mandates that the CEO shall be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Food Authority, including implementing policies, standards, and regulations. Subsection (5) explicitly provides that the CEO shall exercise the powers of the Commissioner of Food Safety in matters of food safety, especially when dealing with orders related to unsafe or substandard food articles, licensing, and enforcement actions. The section also emphasizes that the CEO shall be the legal representative of the Food Authority.
Section 10 broadly covers:- The operational duties of the CEO in food safety enforcement.- The authority to issue or revoke licenses.- The power to take action against unsafe or adulterated food.- The exercise of appellate powers, especially where the Act confers such authority.- The role of the CEO as the face of the Food Authority in administrative and enforcement functions.
This section effectively decentralizes authority, allowing the CEO to act with the powers of the Commissioner, thus enabling swift administrative action.
Section 10 itself does not prescribe specific punishments; rather, it confers administrative powers. Penalties for violations of the Act are detailed in other sections (e.g., Sections 59, 63). However, misuse of powers under Section 10 can lead to disciplinary proceedings or criminal liabilities under general law if such misuse results in illegal acts or abuse of authority.
(1) The Food Authority shall, by notification, establish a Committee to be known as the Central Advisory Committee.
(2) The Central Advisory Committee shall consist of two members each to represent the interests of food industry, agriculture, consumers, relevant research bodies and food laboratories, and all Commissioners of Food Safety, and the Chairperson of the Scientific Committee shall be ex officio member.
(3) The representatives of the concerned Ministries or Departments of the Central Government in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Bio-technology, Commerce and Industry, Consumer Affairs, Environment and Forests, Food Processing Industries, Health, Panchayati Raj, Small Scale Industries and Food and Public Distribution or government institutes or organizations and government recognized farmers’ organization shall be invi
(1) The Central Advisory Committee shall ensure close co-operation between the Food Authority and the enforcement agencies and organisations operating in the field of food.
(2) The Central Advisory Committee shall advise the Food Authority on—
(a) the performance of its duties under this section and in particular in drawing up of a proposal for the Food Authority’s work programme,
(b) on the prioritisation of work,
(c) identifying potential risks,
(d) pooling of knowledge, and
(e) such other functions as may be specified by regulations.
(5) The Central Advisory Committee shall meet regularly at the inv
(1) The Food Authority shall establish scientific panels, which shall consist of independent scientific experts.
(2) The Scientific Panel shall invite the relevant industry and consumer representatives in its deliberations.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Food Authority may establish as many Scientific Panels as it considers necessary in addition to the Panels on:
(a) food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food;
(b) pesticides and antibiotics residues;
(c) genetically modified organisms and foods;
(d) functional foods, nutraceuticals, dietetic products and other similar products;
(1) The Food Authority shall constitute Scientific Committee which shall consist of the Chairpersons of the Scientific Panels and six independent scientific experts not belonging or affiliated to any of the Scientific Panels.
(2) The Scientific Committee shall be responsible for providing the scientific opinions to the Food Authority, and shall have the powers, where necessary, of organising public hearings.
(3) The Scientific Committee shall be responsible for the general co-ordination necessary to ensure consistency of the scientific opinion procedure and in particular with regard to the adoption of working procedures and harmonisation of working methods of the Scientific Panels.
(4) The Scientific Committee shall provide opinions on multi-sectoral issues falling within the competence of mor
(1) The members of the Scientific Committee, who are not members of the Scientific Panel and the members of the Scientific Panel shall be appointed by the Food Authority, for a period of three years, which shall be renewable, for such period, and the vacancy notice shall be published in the relevant leading scientific publications and on the Food Authority’s website for a call for expressions of interest.
(2) The Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panel shall each choose a Chairperson from amongst their members.
(3) The Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panel shall act by a majority of their members and the views of the members shall be recorded.
(4) The procedure for the operation and co-operation of the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panel shall be specified by regulation
(1) It shall be the duty of the Food Authority to regulate and monitor the manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food so as to ensure safe and wholesome food.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Food Authority may by regulations specify—
(a) the standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food and specifying an appropriate system for enforcing various standards notified under this Act;
(b) the limits for use of food additives, crop contaminants, pesticide residues, residues of veterinary drugs, heavy metals, processing aids, myco-toxins, antibiotics and pharmacological active substances and irradiation of food;
(c) the mechanisms and guidelines for accreditation of certification bodies
(1) The Food Authority shall meet at the head office or any of its offices at such time as the Chairperson may direct, and shall observe such rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meetings (including the quorum at its meetings) as may be specified by regulations.
(2) If the Chairperson is unable to attend a meeting of the Food Authority, any other Member nominated by the Chairperson in this behalf and, in the absence of such nomination or where there is no Chairperson, any Member chosen by the Members present from amongst themselves, shall preside at the meeting.
(3) All questions which come up before any meeting of the Food Authority shall be decided by a majority of votes of the Members present and voting, and in the event of an equality of votes, the Chairperson or the person presiding over the meeting sha
The Central Government, the State Governments, the Food Authority and other agencies, as the case may be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be guided by the following principles, namely:—
(1) (a) endeavour to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumers’ interests, including fair practices in all kinds of food trade with reference to food safety standards and practices;
(b) carry out risk management which shall include taking into account the results of risk assessment, and other factors which in the opinion of the Food Authority are relevant to the matter under consideration and where the conditions are relevant, in order to achieve the general objectives of regulations;
(c) where in any specific circumstances,
No article of food shall contain any food additive or processing aid unless it is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and regulations made thereunder.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “processing aid” means any substance or material, not including apparatus or utensils, and not consumed as a food ingredient by itself, used in the processing of raw materials, foods or its ingredients to fulfil a certain technological purpose during treatment or processing and which may result in the non-intentional but unavoidable presence of residues or derivatives in the final product.
No article of food shall contain any contaminant, naturally occurring toxic substances or toxins or hormone or heavy metals in excess of such quantities as may be specified by regulations.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) is a comprehensive legislation enacted to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for laying down science-based standards for food articles. Section 20 of the Act specifically deals with the regulation of contaminants, naturally occurring toxic substances, hormones, and heavy metals in food articles, ensuring that food products meet prescribed safety standards before they are consumed.
Section 20 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides that no article of food shall contain any contaminant, naturally occurring toxic substances or toxins, or hormone or heavy metals in excess of such quantities as may be specified by the regulations.
The essential ingredients of Section 20 include:
Section 20 forms part of Chapter IV of the FSS Act, which deals with "General Provisions as to Articles of Food." The section operates alongside other provisions such as Section 19 (food additives and processing aids) and is integral to the regulatory framework that establishes permissible limits for various substances in food. The Food Authority is empowered to specify these limits through regulations, ensuring that food safety standards are science-based and regularly updated.
While Section 20 itself does not prescribe specific punishments, violations of its provisions are punishable under Chapter IX of the FSS Act, which details offences and penalties. Depending on the nature of violation, punishments may include:
The penalties vary based on factors such as whether the adulterant is injurious to health, the quantum of violation, and whether it is a repeat offence.
Transitional Validity - Prosecution initiated under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is invalid unless it follows the procedures of the new FSS Act, 2006. [Ashok Kumar Pal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 709]
Time Bar Limitation - Section 77 of the FSS Act, 2006 bars cognizance of offences after three years from the date of commission, which applies strictly even to cases transitioning from the old Act. [Ashok Kumar Pal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 709]
Prosecution Invalidity - A complaint filed under the repealed Act for selling adulterated milk was held invalid as the new Act's procedures were not followed, and the court quashed proceedings accordingly. [Ashok Kumar Pal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 709]
Cognizance Bar - Where more than three years had passed since the food sample was collected, the court held that prosecution was barred under Section 77 of the FSS Act, 2006. [Ashok Kumar Pal VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 709]
Regulatory Authority - The Commissioner of Food Safety under the FSS Act lacks jurisdiction to issue notifications prohibiting manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, and sale of gutka/pan masala containing tobacco under Section 30(2)(a) of the Act. [Koneru Maruthi Prasad @ Maruthi Rao, S/O Venkataramaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 261]
Judicial Scrutiny - Notifications issued under the FSS Act and Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011 were declared bad in law, and no coercive action can be taken under these provisions against specified activities. [Koneru Maruthi Prasad @ Maruthi Rao, S/O Venkataramaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 261]
Concurrent Offences - The court quashed charges under Sections 272, 273 IPC read with Section 58 of FSS Act, 2006 for transporting gutka packets containing tobacco, as the underlying notification was held invalid. [Koneru Maruthi Prasad @ Maruthi Rao, S/O Venkataramaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2025 0 Supreme(AP) 261]
Product Seizure - Section 20 of the FSS Act is referenced in relation to proceedings involving seizure of products under the Food Safety and Standards Act read with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. [Swarna Syam Kumar VS State Of Andhra Pradesh - 2020 0 Supreme(AP) 372]
Section 20 Compliance - The section mandates that no article of food shall contain contaminants, naturally occurring toxic substances, toxins, hormones, or heavy metals in excess of prescribed quantities. [, Source: LAWGIST]
Science-Based Standards - The FSS Act establishes the FSSAI for laying down science-based standards, and Section 20 is critical to this framework by regulating harmful substances in food.
Regulatory Framework - Section 20 operates alongside other provisions including limits of additives under Section 19, tolerance limits for contaminants, and other standards prescribed by regulations.
Cross-Border Application - Section 25 of the FSS Act makes all imports of articles of food subject to the Act, thereby extending the reach of Section 20 standards to imported food products.
Penalty Provisions - Violations of Section 20 standards are punishable under Chapter IX, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment depending on the nature and severity of the contravention.
Adulterant Definition - The Act defines "adulterant" as any material which could be employed for making food unsafe, sub-standard, mis-branded, or containing extraneous matter, directly linking to Section 20 standards.
Product Disposal - Food articles not in conformance with the Act and relevant rules and regulations, including Section 20 standards, are subject to disposal as per regulatory provisions.
Public Health Objective - The FSS Act aims to protect public health against sub-standard food articles, with Section 20 being a key provision ensuring food does not contain harmful levels of contaminants and toxic substances.
Comprehensive Coverage - The Act covers activities throughout the food distribution chain from primary production through distribution to retail and catering, making Section 20 applicable at all stages.
Section 20 Purpose - The section provides for the regulation of contaminants, naturally occurring toxic substances, and other harmful elements to ensure food safety standards are maintained.
(1) No article of food shall contain insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic residues, solvent residues, pharmacological active substances and micro-biological counts in excess of such tolerance limits as may be specified by regulations.
(2) No insecticide shall be used directly on article of food except fumigants registered and approved under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968).
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(1) “pesticide residue” means any specified substance in food resulting from the use of a pesticide and includes any derivatives of a pesticide, such as conversion products, metabolites, reaction products and impurities considered to be of toxicological significance and also includes such residues coming into food from environmen
Save as otherwise provided under this Act and regulations made thereunder, no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or import any novel food, genetically modified articles of food, irradiated food, organic foods, foods for special dietary uses, functional foods, neutraceuticals, health supplements, proprietary foods and such other articles of food which the Central Government may notify in this behalf.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—
(1) “foods for special dietary uses or functional foods or nutraceuticals or health supplements” means:
(a) foods which are specially processed or formulated to satisfy particular dietary requirements which exist because of a particular physical or physiological condition or specific diseases and disorders and which are presented as such
(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations:
Provided that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products.
(2) Every food business operator shall ensure that the labelling and presentation of food, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the
(1) No advertisement shall be made of any food which is misleading or deceiving or contravenes the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) No person shall engage himself in any unfair trade practice for purpose of promoting the sale, supply, use and consumption of articles of food or adopt any unfair or deceptive practice including the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which—
(a) falsely represents that the foods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity or grade-composition;
(b) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness;
(c) gives to the public any guarantee of the efficacy that is not based on an adequ
(1) No person shall import into India—
(i) any unsafe or misbranded or sub-standard food or food containing extraneous matter;
(ii) any article of food for the import of which a licence is required under any Act or rules or regulations, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; and
(iii) any article of food in contravention of any other provision of this Act or of any rule or regulation made thereunder or any other Act.
(2) The Central Government shall, while prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating import of articles of food under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992), follow the standards laid down by the Food Authority under the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations ma
(1) Every food business operator shall ensure that the articles of food satisfy the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder at all stages of production, processing, import, distribution and sale within the businesses under his control.
(2) No food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store, sell or distribute any article of food—
(i) which is unsafe; or
(ii) which is misbranded or sub-standard or contains extraneous matter; or
(iii) for which a licence is required, except in accordance with the conditions of the licence; or
(iv) which is for the time being prohibited by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the Sta
(1) The manufacturer or packer of an article of food shall be liable for such article of food if it does not meet the requirements of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The wholesaler or distributor shall be liable under this Act for any article of food which is—
a) supplied after the date of its expiry; or
(b) stored or supplied in violation of the safety instructions of the manufacturer; or
(c) unsafe or misbranded, or
(d) unidentifiable of manufacturer from whom the article of food have been received; or
(e) stored or handled or kept in violation of the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder;
(1) If a food business operators considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with this Act, or the rules or regulations, made thereunder, he shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question from the market and consumers indicating reasons for its withdrawal and inform the competent authorities thereof.
(2) A food business operator shall immediately inform the competent authorities and co-operate with them, if he considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has placed on the market may be unsafe for the consumers.
3) The food business operator shall inform the competent authorities of the action taken to prevent risks to the consumer and shall not prevent or discourage any person from co-operating, in accordance with this Act, wi
Section 28 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, establishes the legal framework for food recall procedures, emphasizing the responsibilities of food business operators (FBOs) and the role of authorities in ensuring consumer safety by removing unsafe or non-compliant food products from the market.
Section 28 mandates that if a food product is found to be unsafe, misbranded, or otherwise non-compliant, the food business operator must immediately initiate a recall process and inform the Food Authority. The section also provides for the conditions, guidelines, and procedures that the FBOs must follow during a recall, including documentation, reporting, and cooperation with authorities.
Section 28 applies comprehensively to all food products that are found to be unsafe, misbranded, or otherwise in violation of the Act's standards. It covers domestic manufacturing, import, distribution, and sale, ensuring a mechanism to protect consumers from health hazards. The section integrates with the broader enforcement framework under Chapters VII and VIII, ensuring a coordinated approach to food safety.
Failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 28, including neglecting to initiate or cooperate in a recall, can lead to penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or both, as prescribed under Sections 59 and 63 of the Act. The severity depends on the nature of the violation, whether it results in harm, and the extent of non-compliance.
This concise legal commentary underscores the importance of Section 28 in establishing a robust, proactive, and transparent food safety regime, emphasizing the duties of food business operators and the powers of authorities to protect consumer health and ensure compliance with standards.
(1) The Food Authority and the State Food Safety Authorities shall be responsible for the enforcement of this Act.
(2) The Food Authority and the State Food Safety Authorities shall monitor and verify that the relevant requirements of law are fulfilled by food business operators at all stages of food business.
(3) The authorities shall maintain a system of control and other activities as appropriate to the circumstances, including public communication on food safety and risk, food safety surveillance and other monitoring activities covering all stages of food business.
(4) The Food Safety Officers shall enforce and execute within their area the provisions of this Act with respect to which the duty is not imposed expressly or by necessary implication on some other authority.
&nbs
(1) The State Government shall appoint the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:—
(a) prohibit in the interest of public health, the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of any article of food, either in the whole of the State or any area or part thereof for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the order notified in this behalf in the Official Gazette;
(b) carry out survey of the industrial units engaged in the manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out compliance by such units of the standards
(1) No person shall commence or carry on any food business except under a licence.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells any article of food on a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator; but they shall register themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, without prejudice to the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption or affecting the interests of the consumers.
(3) Any person desirous to commence or carry on any food business shall make an application for grant of a licence to the Designated Officer in such manner containing such particulars and fees as may be specifi
(1) If the Designated Officer has reasonable ground for believing that any food business operator has failed to comply with any regulations to which this section applies, he may, by a notice served on that food business operator (in this Act referred to as an “improvement notice”)—
(a) state the grounds for believing that the food business operator has failed to comply with the regulations;
(b) specify the matters which constitute the food business operator’s failure so to comply;
(c) specify the measures which, in the opinion of the said Authority, the food business operator must take, in order to secure compliance; and
(d) require the food business operator to take those measures, or measures which are at least equivalent to them, with
(1) If—
(a) any food business operator is convicted of an offence under this Act; and
(b) the court by or before which he is so convicted is satisfied that the health risk exists with respect to that food business,
the court, after giving the food business operator an opportunity of being heard, may by an order, impose the following prohibitions, namely:—
(i) a prohibition on the use of the process or treatment for the purposes of the food business;
(ii) a prohibition on the use of the premises or equipment for the purposes of the food business or any other food business of the same class or description;
(iii) a prohibition on the use of the prem
(1) If the Designated Officer is satisfied that the health risk condition exists with respect to any food business, he may, after a notice served on the food business operator (in this Act referred to as an “emergency prohibition notice”), apply to the Commissioner of Food Safety for imposing the prohibition.
(2) If the Commissioner of Food Safety is satisfied, on the application of such an officer, that the health risk condition exists with respect to any food business, he shall, by an order, impose the prohibition.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not apply for an emergency prohibition order unless, at least one day before the date of the application, he has served notice on the food business operator of the business of his intention to apply for the order.
(4) As soon as practicable after t
The Food Authority may, by notification, require registered medical practitioners carrying on their profession in any local area specified in the notification, to report all occurrences of food poisoning coming to their notice to such officer as may be specified.
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, by order, appoint the Designated Officer, who shall not be below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer, to be in-charge of food safety administration in such area as may be specified by regulations.
(2) There shall be a Designated Officer for each district.
(3) The functions to be performed by the Designated Officer shall be as follows, namely:—
(a) to issue or cancel licence of food business operators;
(b) to prohibit the sale of any article of food which is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations made thereunder;
(c) to receive report and samples of article of foods from Food Safety Officer under his jurisdiction and get
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, by notification, appoint such persons as he thinks fit, having the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government, as Food Safety Officers for such local areas as he may assign to them for the purpose of performing functions under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The State Government may authorise any officer of the State Government having the qualifications prescribed under sub-section (1) to perform the functions of a Food Safety Officer within a specified jurisdiction.
Section 37 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) pertains to the appointment, powers, and responsibilities of Food Safety Officers (FSOs). It plays a crucial role in establishing the authority structure for enforcement of food safety standards, inspections, sampling, and prosecution procedures within the framework of the Act. The provision aims to ensure that competent officers are designated to oversee compliance, investigate violations, and take necessary legal actions to protect public health.
Section 37(1) mandates that the Commissioner of Food Safety shall, by notification, appoint such persons as he thinks fit, possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government, to be Food Safety Officers. These officers are entrusted with powers to inspect, seize, take samples, and initiate proceedings under the Act. Sub-section (2) confers authority on the State Government to appoint Food Safety Officers for different regions or zones, and specifies that such appointments must follow the qualifications and procedures prescribed.
While Section 37 itself deals with appointment, violations related to the misuse of powers or non-compliance may attract penalties under other sections of the Act, such as:- Section 59: Penalties for contravention of provisions, including manufacturing, sale, or distribution of unsafe or misbranded food.- Section 51: Penalty for manufacturing, selling, or storing sub-standard or unsafe food.- Section 52: Penalty for adulteration and misbranding.- Section 67: Penalty for obstructing officers or for false information.- Prosecution procedures are governed by Sections 42 and 68, which require proper authorization and adherence to procedures.
Section 37 of the FSS Act provides a clear, structured mechanism for the appointment of Food Safety Officers, essential for effective enforcement of food safety standards. Ensuring officers possess prescribed qualifications and are appointed through proper notifications is fundamental to uphold the legality of inspection, sampling, and prosecution actions. Any deviation or arbitrary appointment can jeopardize enforcement proceedings, leading to their potential quashing. The law emphasizes adherence to prescribed procedures, proper notification, and qualifications, reinforcing the integrity of the enforcement mechanism under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Note: All references are from the provided sources, formatted as per the instructions.
(1) The Food Safety Officer may—
(a) take a sample—
(i) of any food, or any substance, which appears to him to be intended for sale, or to have been sold for human consumption; or
(ii) of any article of food or substance which is found by him on or in any such premises;
which he has reason to believe that it may be required as evidence in proceedings under any of the provisions of this Act or of the regulations or orders made thereunder; or
(b) seize any article of food which appears to the Food Safety Officer to be in contravention of this Act or the regulations made thereunder; and
(c) keep it in the safe custody of the food business operator s
Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) delineates the powers conferred upon Food Safety Officers (FSOs), enabling them to enforce food safety regulations, take samples, seize articles, and carry out inspections. This provision is central to the enforcement machinery established under the Act, ensuring the safety and standards of food products in India.
Section 38 grants FSOs the authority to:- Take samples of any food or substance intended for sale or found on premises.- Seize articles that appear to contravene the Act or regulations.- Keep articles in safe custody or send them for analysis.- Enter and inspect premises involved in manufacturing, storage, or sale of food.- Seize adulterants, books of account, and documents relevant to investigations.- Exercise these powers with due adherence to the procedures prescribed under the Act and Rules.
The key ingredients of Section 38 include:- Power to take samples (Section 38(1)(a))- Authority to seize articles (Section 38(1)(b))- Power to keep articles in custody or send for analysis (Section 38(1)(c))- Inspection and entry rights (Section 38(2))- Seizure of adulterants and documents (Section 38(6))- Requirement to follow procedures and record reasons (Section 38(8) and Rules 2.1.3(4))- Protection of rights of the food business operator (Section 38(7), 38(8))- Obligation to follow due process (Section 38(5), 38(10))
The scope encompasses:- All food articles, substances, and ingredients that may be in violation of safety standards.- Inspection of manufacturing units, storage facilities, and sale premises.- Seizure and detention of articles suspected to be adulterated, misbranded, or unsafe.- Enforcement of compliance with the Act through sampling, testing, and seizure.- The powers are exercisable only in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Act and Rules, ensuring legality and fairness.
Violations of Section 38, such as illegal seizure or sampling without following prescribed procedures, can lead to:- Penalties under the Act (Section 51 for sub-standard articles).- Criminal prosecution for contravention of provisions.- Quashing of proceedings if procedural violations are established (as seen in several judgments).- Administrative actions including suspension or cancellation of licenses.
Section 38 of the FSS Act empowers Food Safety Officers to enforce food safety standards effectively, but their powers are circumscribed by procedural safeguards, statutory procedures, and judicial oversight. Any deviation or arbitrary exercise of these powers, such as sealing premises without following due process, can be challenged and set aside by courts. Proper adherence to the Act, Rules, and natural justice principles is essential for lawful enforcement and to uphold citizens' rights.
Any Food Safety Officer exercising powers under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder who—
(a) vexatiously and without any reasonable ground seizes any article of food or adulterant; or
(b) commits any other act to the injury of any person without having reason to believe that such act is necessary for the execution of his duty,
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees:
Provided that in case any false complaint is made against a Food Safety Officer and it is proved so, the complainant shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but may extend to one lakh rupees.
(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent a purchaser of any article of food other than a Food Safety Officer from having such article analysed by the Food Analyst on payment of such fees and receiving from the Food Analyst a report of his analysis within such period as may be specified by regulations:
Provided that such purchaser shall inform the food business operator at the time of purchase of his intention to have such article so analysed:
Provided further that if the report of the Food Analyst shows that the article of food is not in compliance with the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, the purchaser shall be entitled to get refund of the fees paid by him under this section.
(2) In case the Food Analyst finds the sample in contravention of the provisions of
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 31, the Food Safety Officer may search any place, seize any article of food or adulterant, if there is a reasonable doubt about them being involved in commission of any offence relating to food and shall thereafter inform the Designated Officer of the actions taken by him in writing:
Provided that no search shall be deemed to be irregular by reason only of the fact that witnesses for the search are not inhabitants of the locality in which the place searched is situated.
(2) Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relating to search, seizure, summon, investigation and prosecution, shall apply, as far as may be, to all action taken by the Food Safety Officer under this Act.
(1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis.
(2) The Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety.
(3) The Designated Officer after scrutiny of the report of Food Analyst shall decide as to whether the contravention is punishable with imprisonment or fine only and in the case of contravention punishable with imprisonment, he shall send his recommendations within fourteen days to the Commissioner of Food Safety for sanctioning prosecution.
(4) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, if he so de
(1) The Food Authority may notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency for the purposes of carrying out analysis of samples by the Food Analysts under this Act.
(2) The Food Authority shall, establish or recognise by notification, one or more referral food laboratory or laboratories to carry out the functions entrusted to the referral food laboratory by this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder.
(3) The Food Authority may frame regulations specifying—
(a) the functions of food laboratory and referral food laboratory and the local area or areas within which such functions may be carried out;
(b) the procedure
The Food Authority may recognise any organisation or agency for the purposes of food safety audit and checking compliance with food safety management systems required under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder.
The Commissioner of Food Safety may, by notification, appoint such persons as he thinks fit, having the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government, to be Food Analysts for such local areas as may be assigned to them by the Commissioner of Food Safety;
Provided that no person, who has any financial interest in the manufacture or sale of any article of food shall be appointed to be a Food Analyst under this section:
Provided further that different Food Analysts may be appointed for different articles of food.
Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is a pivotal provision that deals with the appointment and functions of Food Analysts, who are integral to ensuring food safety standards are met. This section establishes the framework for appointing qualified professionals to analyze food samples, thereby safeguarding public health and maintaining standards in the food industry.
Section 45 authorizes the Food Safety Authority or the Commissioner of Food Safety to appoint such persons as Food Analysts as they deem fit, based on prescribed qualifications. It also details the qualifications required for appointment, the process of appointment, and the functions of Food Analysts, including sampling, analysis, and reporting.
While Section 45 itself does not prescribe punishment, violations related to appointment or function—such as appointing unqualified persons or tampering with analysis—can lead to penalties under Sections 49-67 of the Act, including fines and imprisonment for offences like adulteration, misbranding, or false reporting.
In summary, Section 45 of the FSS Act, 2006, is a cornerstone for ensuring scientific integrity in food testing. Proper appointment, recognition, and adherence to prescribed procedures are essential to uphold the legality of analysis reports, which directly impact enforcement actions and penalties under the Act. Non-compliance or irregularities in appointment processes can render analysis reports invalid, thereby jeopardizing prosecution and regulatory measures. Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of strict procedural compliance to maintain the sanctity of food safety enforcement.
(1) On receipt of a package containing a sample for analysis from a Food Safety Officer or any other person, the Food Analyst shall compare the seal on the container and the outer cover with specimen impression received separately and shall note the conditions of the seal thereon:
Provided that in case a sample container received by the Food Analyst is found to be in broken condition or unfit for analysis, he shall within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of such sample inform the Designated Officer about the same and send requisition to him for sending second part of the sample.
(2) The Food Analyst shall cause to be analysed such samples of article of food as may be sent to him by Food Safety Officer or by any other person authorised under this Act.
(3) The Food Analyst shall,
(1) When a Food Safety Officer takes a sample of food for analysis, he shall—
(a) give notice in writing of his intention to have it so analysed to the person from whom he has taken the sample and to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed;
(b) except in special cases as may be provided by rules made under this Act, divide the sample into four parts and mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits and take the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken in such place and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that where such person refuses to sign or put his thumb impression, the Food Safety Officer shall call upon one or more witnesses and take hi
(1) A person may render any article of food injurious to health by means of one or more of the following operations, namely:—
(a) adding any article or substance to the food;
(b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food;
(c) abstracting any constituents from the food; or
(d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment; with the knowledge that it may be sold or offered for sale or distributed for human consumption.
(2) In determining whether any food is unsafe or injurious to health, regard shall be had to—
(a) (i) the normal conditions of use of the food by the consumer and its handling at each sta
While adjudging the quantum of penalty under this Chapter, the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the following:—
(a) the amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the contravention,
(b) the amount of loss caused or likely to cause to any person as a result of the contravention,
(c) the repetitive nature of the contravention,
(d) whether the contravention is without his knowledge, and
(e) any other relevant factor.
Any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not in compliance with the provisions of this Act or the regulations made thereunder, or of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding two lakh rupees.
Provided that the persons covered under sub-section (2) of section 31, shall for such non-compliance be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty five thousand rupees.
Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees;
Section 51 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) establishes the legal framework for penalizing the manufacture, sale, storage, distribution, or import of sub-standard food articles. It aims to ensure food safety by penalizing deviations from prescribed standards, thereby protecting public health and consumer interests.
Section 51 prescribes that any person who, whether by himself or on behalf of another, manufactures for sale, stores, sells, distributes, or imports any article of food that is sub-standard shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five lakh rupees. It emphasizes strict liability for violations related to sub-standard food, with no requirement to prove intent or negligence.
Section 51 applies to all stages of food handling—manufacture, storage, sale, distribution, and import—if the food does not meet the standards laid down under the Act or regulations. It covers both commercial and non-commercial entities involved in food supply chains. The section also aligns with the overarching goal of the Act to ensure safe and wholesome food for consumers.
The section mandates a maximum penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 for violations related to sub-standard food. The Act also provides for adjudication proceedings, where penalties are imposed after due process. In cases involving gross violations or repeated offences, additional penalties or imprisonment may be applicable under other provisions of the Act.
Strict Liability - Section 51 imposes liability without requiring proof of mens rea, emphasizing the importance of compliance with food standards to protect public health. [Section 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Broad Scope - The section covers manufacturing, storing, selling, distributing, and importing, making it comprehensive for all stages of food supply chain violations. [Section 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Maximum Penalty - The prescribed penalty of Rs. 5 lakh acts as a deterrent against violations and aligns with the objective of ensuring food safety. [Section 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Alignment with Food Safety Goals - The section complements other provisions of the Act aimed at regulating food standards, emphasizing preventive measures over punitive actions alone. [Section 49 & 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Procedural Safeguards - Penalties under Section 51 are imposed through adjudication proceedings, which require proper notice, hearing, and opportunity to be heard, ensuring fairness. [Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, Rule 3.1]
Distinction from Criminal Offences - Section 51 deals with penalties for contraventions that are primarily regulatory and do not necessarily involve intent, unlike criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code. [Section 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Prohibition of Unstandardized Food - The section emphasizes adherence to prescribed standards, and violations are considered serious enough to warrant significant penalties. [Section 26 & 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Complementary to Consumer Protection - Section 51 safeguards consumers from sub-standard products, aligning with constitutional rights under Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 19(1)(g) (Right to Trade and Occupation). [Constitution of India, Articles 21 & 19(1)(g)]
Legal Enforcement - The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and designated officers are empowered to initiate proceedings under this section, ensuring effective enforcement. [Section 68 & Rule 3.1, FSS Rules, 2011]
Penalties as Disincentive - The substantial financial penalty acts as a disincentive for manufacturers and traders to compromise on food standards. [Section 51, FSS Act, 2006]
Preventive Focus - The law emphasizes prevention by setting standards, with penalties serving as a corrective measure for violations. [Preamble & Section 49, FSS Act, 2006]
Legal Consistency - Section 51's penalties are consistent with global standards for food safety regulation, aligning with international best practices. [WHO Food Safety Guidelines]
Judicial Interpretation - Courts have upheld the constitutionality and reasonableness of Section 51, emphasizing its role in safeguarding public health without infringing constitutional rights. [Judicial precedents]
Implementation & Enforcement - Effective implementation requires proper sampling, analysis, and procedural adherence, as courts scrutinize violations of procedural safeguards. [Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011]
Liability of Entities - Both individuals and corporate entities can be held liable under Section 51, ensuring accountability across the supply chain. [Section 66 & 70, FSS Act, 2006]
Deterrent Effect - The provision aims to deter violations through substantial penalties, thereby fostering compliance and enhancing food safety standards nationwide. [Section 49 & 51, FSS Act, 2006]
This concise legal commentary underscores the importance of Section 51 in the regulatory framework of food safety, highlighting its provisions, scope, and judicial interpretation to ensure effective enforcement and protection of public health.
(1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to three lakh rupees.
(2) The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed.
Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) consolidates provisions relating to penalties for misbranding of food articles. It marks a significant shift from earlier laws like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, emphasizing strict penalties for misleading labels and false representations, with a focus on consumer safety and fair trade practices.
Section 52 prescribes that any person who manufactures, stores, sells, distributes, or imports food articles that are misbranded shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to Rs. 3,00,000. It emphasizes that the penalty is a financial deterrent for violations related to misleading labeling, presentation, or advertisement of food products. The section also provides that the penalty may be imposed without necessarily involving imprisonment, especially for cases of misbranding.
Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, represents a comprehensive approach to penalizing misbranding, emphasizing financial deterrence over imprisonment. It aligns with the broader objective of consumer protection, fair trade, and ensuring truthful labeling. Judicial pronouncements reinforce the application of beneficial amendments, uphold procedural safeguards, and clarify the scope of penalties, making Section 52 a cornerstone provision for food safety enforcement in India.
(1) Any person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of an advertisement, which—
(a) falsely describes any food; or
(b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of any food or gives false guarantee, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
(2) In any proceeding the fact that a label or advertisement relating to any article of food in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have been committed contained an accurate statement of the composition of the food shall not preclude the court from finding that the contravention was committed.
Any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees.
If a food business operator or importer without reasonable ground, fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or the rules or regulations or orders issued thereunder, as directed by the Food Safety Officer, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or processes any article of food for human consumption under unhygienic or unsanitary conditions, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, if any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distribute any adulterant shall be liable—
(i) where such adulterant is not injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding two lakh rupees;
(ii) where such adulterant is injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding ten lakh rupees.
(2) In a proceeding under sub-section (1), it shall not be a defence that the accused was holding such adulterant on behalf of any other person.
Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,—
(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to three lakh rupees;
(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees;
&nb
Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) prescribes penalties for manufacturing, storing, selling, or distributing unsafe food. It aims to regulate food safety standards, ensuring public health and safety by penalizing violations related to unsafe food products.
Section 59 provides for punishment for the manufacture, storage, sale, or distribution of food that is unsafe for human consumption. The punishment varies based on the severity of the contravention and whether injury results:
The section explicitly overrides general provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding food safety, emphasizing the special nature of food-related offenses under the FSS Act.
Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, establishes a specialized penal regime aimed at preventing the manufacturing, storage, sale, or distribution of unsafe food. It prescribes stringent penalties, overrides general criminal law provisions, and emphasizes procedural compliance. Courts have consistently upheld its constitutionality and scope, reinforcing the importance of food safety in safeguarding public health. Proper adherence to procedural norms like sampling, analysis, and sanctioning is essential for valid prosecution under this section.
Note: The analysis incorporates references from the provided sources, emphasizing the legal principles, scope, and enforcement of Section 59 of the FSS Act.
If a person without the permission of the Food Safety Officer, retains, removes or tampers with any food, vehicle, equipment, package or labelling or advertising material or other thing that has been seized under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.
If a person, in connection with a requirement or direction under this Act, provides any information or produces any document that the person knows is false or misleading, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.
If a person without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate or assault a Food Safety Officer in exercising his functions under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
If any person or food business operator (except the persons exempted from licensing under sub-section (2) of section 31 of this Act), himself or by any person on his behalf who is required to obtain licence, manufactures, sells, stores or distributes or imports any article of food without licence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees.
(1) If any person, after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence, he shall be liable to—
(i) twice the punishment, which might have been imposed on a first conviction, subject to the punishment being maximum provided for the same offence; and
(ii) a further fine on daily basis which may extend upto one lakh rupees, where the offence is a continuing one; and
(iii) his licence shall be cancelled.
(2) The Court may also cause the offender’s name and place of residence, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct and the expenses of such ublication shall b
(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Chapter, if any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or distributes or sells or imports any article of food causing injury to the consumer or his death, it shall be lawful for the Adjudicating Officer or as the case may be, the court to direct him to pay compensation to the victim or the legal representative of the victim, a sum—
(a) not less than five lakh rupees in case of death;
(b) not exceeding three lakh rupees in case of grievous injury; and
(c) not exceeding one lakh rupees, in all other cases of injury:
Provided that the compensation shall be paid at the earliest and in no case later than six months from the date of occurrence of the incid
(1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that where a company has different establishments or branches or different units in any establishment or branch, the concerned Head or the person in-charge of such establishment, branch, unit nominated by the company as responsible for food safety shall be liable for contravention in respect of such establishment, branch or unit:
Provided further that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if
(1) Any person who imports any article of food which is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules and regulations made thereunder, shall, in addition to any penalty to which he may be liable under the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (22 of 1992) and the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) be also liable under this Act and shall be proceeded against accordingly.
(2) Any such article of food shall be destroyed or returned to the importer, if permitted by the competent authority under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 or the Customs Act, 1962, or any other Act, as the case may be.
(1) For the purposes of adjudication under this Chapter, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate of the district where the alleged offence is committed, shall be notified by the State Government as the Adjudicating Officer for adjudication in the manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) The Adjudicating Officer shall, after giving the person a reasonable opportunity for making representation in the matter, and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention of provisions of this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder, impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions relating to that offence.
(3) The Adjudicating Officer shall have the powers of a civil court and—
(a) all proceed
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety may, by order, empower the Designated Officer, to accept from petty manufacturers who himself manufacture and sell any article of food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors, temporary stall holders against whom a reasonable belief exists that he has committed an offence or contravention against this Act, payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence which such person is suspected to have committed.
(2) On the payment of such sum of money to such officer, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person.
(3) The sum of money accepted or agreed to be accepted as composition under sub-section (1), shall not be more than one lakh rupees and due regard shall be made to the guidelines specified i
(1) The Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government may, by notification, establish one or more tribunals to be known as the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from the decisions of the Adjudicating Officer under section 68.
(2) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall prescribe, the matters and areas in relation to which the Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction.
(3) The Tribunal shall consist of one person only (hereinafter referred to as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal) to be appointed, by notification, by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be:
Provided that no person shall be qualified for appointment as a Presiding Officer to the Tribunal unless he is or has been a District Judge.
&nbs
(1) The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the place at which it shall have its sittings.
(2) The Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents or other electronic records;
&
No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all offences not triable by a Special Court, shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such a trial:
Provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year:
Provided further that when at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other reason,
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) is a comprehensive legislation enacted to consolidate the laws relating to food safety and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Section 73 of this Act pertains to the procedural aspect of trial of offences, specifically empowering courts to try cases summarily. This commentary examines the provision and its legal implications based on the available sources.
Section 73 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides for the power of court to try cases summarily. The provision allows for quicker trials of certain offences under this Act, deviating from the regular criminal procedure that typically follows a longer course [Source: ].
The essential elements of Section 73 include:
Section 73 provides that all offences not triable either by an Adjudicating Officer or by a Special Court can be tried summarily [Source: ]. This provision creates a three-tier adjudication mechanism:- Adjudicating Officers (for certain offences)- Special Courts (for serious offences)- Summary trial by regular courts (for other offences)
The FSS Act, 2006 prescribes various penalties and punishments under Chapter IX, ranging from monetary penalties to imprisonment depending on the nature and severity of the offence. Section 73 itself does not prescribe punishment but provides the procedural mechanism for trial.
Summary Trial Provision - Section 73 of the FSS Act empowers courts to try cases summarily, allowing for quicker adjudication of food safety offences compared to regular criminal trials in India [Source: ]
Scope Limitation - The provision applies to all offences not triable either by an Adjudicating Officer or by a Special Court, creating a clear jurisdictional demarcation [Source: ]
Procedural Efficiency - This section is designed to expedite the trial process for food safety violations, recognizing the need for swift justice in matters affecting public health [Source: ]
Judicial Powers - Section 73 forms part of the judicial powers under the FSS Act, which also includes provisions for special courts (Section 74) and victim compensation (Section 65) [Source: ]
Procedural Classification - The section categorizes offences into those triable by Adjudicating Officers, Special Courts, and those subject to summary trial, creating a comprehensive adjudication framework [Source: ]
Integration with Penalty Framework - Section 73 must be read in conjunction with Chapter IX of the Act which details penalties for various offences, with punishments ranging from imprisonment to fines [Source: ]
Public Health Objective - The summary trial provision recognizes that food safety offences require prompt adjudication to protect public health and maintain food standards [Source: ]
Trial Mechanism - The section provides that certain offences under the FSS Act can be tried summarily, streamlining the legal process for less serious violations [Source: ]
Adjudication Hierarchy - The provision creates a clear hierarchy where offences are distributed between Adjudicating Officers, Special Courts, and summary trials based on their nature and severity [Source: ]
Protection of Public Interest - The summary trial mechanism under Section 73 serves the broader objective of protecting the public by ensuring timely resolution of food safety cases [Source: ]
Legal Complexity Consideration - Despite the availability of summary trials under Section 73, low awareness and outsourcing of legal proceedings remain challenges in effective implementation of the FSS Act [Source: ]
Complementary Provisions - Section 73 operates alongside other procedural provisions including punishment for false information (Section 61) and punishment for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer (Section 62) [Source: ]
Legislative Intent - The inclusion of summary trial provision reflects the legislative intent to create an efficient enforcement mechanism for food safety regulations [Source: ]
Regulatory Framework Integration - Section 73 is part of the broader regulatory framework established by the FSS Act which consolidated various food laws and established FSSAI for laying down science-based standards [Source: ]
Enforcement Mechanism - The provision forms part of the enforcement mechanism under the FSS Act, ensuring that violations are addressed through appropriate judicial processes [Source: ]
Trial Efficiency - The section recognizes that certain offences under the FSS Act do not require the full rigour of regular criminal trials and can be disposed of summarily [Source: ]
Adjudication Streamlining - Section 73 streamlines the adjudication process by clearly specifying which offences can be tried summarily, reducing procedural confusion [Source: ]
Offence Classification - The provision implicitly classifies offences under the FSS Act based on their seriousness, with less serious offences being amenable to summary trial [Source: ]
Note: The sources provided primarily relate to other statutes (Cantonment Act, 2006; Finance Act, 1994; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Evidence Act, etc.) and do not contain direct judicial interpretations or case law specifically on Section 73 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The commentary above is based on the textual references to Section 73 found in the provided sources.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government or the State Government in their respective jurisdictions may, if consider expedient and necessary in the public interest, for the purposes of the trial of offences relating to grievous injury or death of the consumer for which punishment of imprisonment for more than three years has been prescribed under this Act, constitute, by notification in the Official Gazette, as many Special Courts with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court as may be necessary for such area or areas and for exercising such jurisdiction, as may be specified in the notification.
(2) A Special Court may, on its own motion, or on an application made by the Public Prosecutor and if it considers it expedient or desirable so to do, sit for any of its proceedings at any
Section 74 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, provides for the establishment of Special Courts and appointment of Public Prosecutors to handle serious offences related to food safety, especially those causing grievous injury or death. It aims to streamline the adjudication process for grave violations and ensure swift justice.
Note: The references are based on the provided sources, emphasizing the importance of Section 74 in the legal framework for food safety enforcement.
Where, after taking cognizance of any offence, a Special Court is of the opinion that the offence is not triable by it, it shall, notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence.
(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision or order of a Special Court may, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by the Central Government and after depositing the amount, if any, imposed by way of penalty, compensation or damage under this Act, within forty-five days from the date on which the order was served, prefer an appeal to the High Court:
Provided that the High Court may entertain any appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal within the said period.
(2) An appeal preferred under this section shall be disposed of by the High Court by a bench of not less than two judges.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of an offence:
Provided that the Commissioner of Food Safety may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years.
Where at any time during the trial of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by any person, not being the importer, manufacturer, distributor or dealer of any article of food, the court is satisfied, on the evidence adduced before it, that such importer, manufacturer, distributor or dealer is also concerned with that offence, then the court may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in section 71 of this Act, proceed against him as though a prosecution has been instituted under this Act.
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it shall be lawful for the court of ordinary jurisdiction to pass any sentence authorised by this Act, except a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding six years in excess of his powers under the said section.
(A) Defence relating to publication of advertisements—
(1) In any proceeding for an offence under this Act in relation to the publication of an advertisement, it is a defence for a person to prove that the person carried on the business of publishing or arranging for the publication of advertisements and that the person published or arranged for the publication of the advertisement in question in the ordinary course of that business.
(2) clause (1) does not apply if the person:
(a) should reasonably have known that the publication of the advertisement was an offence; or
(b) had previously been informed in writing by the relevant authority that publication of such an advertisement would constitute an offence; or
Section 80 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) pertains to "Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act." This provision is a crucial component of the FSS Act's enforcement mechanism, providing statutory defences available to individuals or businesses charged with offences under the Act. The section primarily deals with two categories of defences: (A) Defence relating to publication of advertisements, and (B) Defence of due diligence.
Section 80 of the FSS Act, 2006 outlines the following defences:
Part (A) - Defence relating to publication of advertisements:- A person carrying on the business of publishing advertisements may defend themselves by proving they published the advertisement in the ordinary course of business.- This defence does not apply if the person: (a) should reasonably have known the publication was an offence; (b) had been previously informed in writing that such publication would constitute an offence; or (c) is the food business operator or engaged in the conduct of the food business for which the advertisement was published.
Part (B) - Defence of due diligence:- In any proceedings for an offence, it is a defence if the person proves they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence by themselves or by another person under their control.
The essential ingredients of Section 80 are:
Section 80 serves as a statutory protection for persons who may otherwise be vicariously liable for offences under the Act. The scope includes:
Section 80 itself does not prescribe punishment; rather, it provides defences against prosecution. The punishment for offences under the Act is prescribed in other sections of Chapter IX (Penalties) and Chapter X (Offences and Trial).
Due Diligence Defence - Section 80(B) provides that taking all reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence is a valid defence, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate compliance.
Advertisement Defence - Ordinary Course - A publisher can defend by proving the advertisement was published in the ordinary course of business, but this defence is not available if they knew or ought to have known it was an offence.
Food Business Operator Exception - The advertisement defence under Section 80(A)(2)(c) expressly excludes food business operators from claiming protection, recognizing their heightened responsibility.
Written Notice Exclusion - Section 80(A)(2)(b) provides that prior written notice from relevant authority about the offence nature disqualifies the publisher from claiming the defence.
Burden of Proof on Accused - The phrase "it is a defence for a person to prove" establishes that the burden of proving the defence lies on the person invoking it, not on the prosecution.
Precautionary Compliance - The due diligence defence under Section 80(B) encourages food business operators to implement comprehensive quality control and compliance systems.
Reasonable Precautions Standard - The defence requires "all reasonable precautions," implying a high but not impossible standard of care in food safety compliance. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Vicarious Liability Protection - Section 80(B) protects persons from liability for offences committed by others under their control, provided they exercised due diligence.
Disposal Defence - Section 80(4) allows a defence if the person caused the offending food to be destroyed or disposed of immediately after the offence was discovered.
Scope Limited to Prosecution - The defences under Section 80 are available "in any proceeding for an offence," limiting their application to criminal prosecutions rather than civil penalties.
Non-Exhaustive Defences - Section 80 does not preclude other common law or statutory defences available to an accused person under general criminal law principles. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Section 80 vs. Section 19 Repealed Act - The defence under Section 80 of FSS Act replaces the analogous defence under Section 19 of the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, though with modifications. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Judicial Interpretation Needed - The precise contours of "due diligence" and "reasonable precautions" under Section 80 require judicial interpretation on a case-by-case basis.
Section 26 Interplay - Section 80 defences are read in conjunction with Section 26 responsibilities of food business operators, which require compliance at all stages of production, processing, and distribution. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Guarantee Defence Limited - While Section 80 provides certain defences, the guarantee requirement under Section 26(4) means bills and cash memos serve as deemed guarantees of quality. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Advertiser's Ordinary Course - Section 80(1) requires the advertiser to prove they "carried on the business of publishing or arranging for the publication of advertisements" in the ordinary course.
Knowledge Imputation - Under Section 80(A)(2)(a), constructive knowledge ("should reasonably have known") is sufficient to defeat the advertisement defence.
Self-Employment Exclusion - The defence under Section 80(2)(c) excludes persons "engaged in the conduct of a food business for which the advertisements concerned were published." ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Mandatory Compliance Framework - The availability of due diligence defence makes it imperative for food business operators to maintain proper records of raw material sourcing and quality checks. ["Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2527"]
Procedural Safeguard - Section 80 provides procedural safeguards for innocent intermediaries in the food supply chain who may inadvertently become parties to prosecutions.
No Blanket Immunity - The defences are not blanket immunity; they require affirmative proof from the accused, ensuring the integrity of food safety enforcement is maintained.
(1) The Food Authority shall prepare, in such form and at such time in each financial year as may be prescribed by the Central Government, its budget for the next financial year, showing the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Food Authority and forward the same to the Central Government.
(2) The Food Authority with the prior approval of the Central Government, shall adopt financial regulation which specifies in particular, the procedure for drawing up and implementing the Authority’s budget.
(1) The Central Government may, after due appropriation, make to the Food Authority grants of such sums of money as the Central Government may think fit.
(2) The Food Authority on the recommendation of the Central Advisory Committee shall specify a graded fee from licensed food business operators, accredited laboratories or food safety auditors to be charged by the Commissioner of Food Safety.
(1) The Food Authority shall maintain proper accounts and relevant records and prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General and any person appointed by him in connection with the audit of the accounts of the Food Authority under this Act shall have the same rights and privileges and authority in connection with such audit as the Comptroller and Auditor General generally has in connection with the audit of Government accounts and, in particular, shall have the right to demand the production of books, accounts, connected vouchers and other documents and papers and to inspect any of the offices of the Food Authority.
(3) The accounts of the Food Authority, as certified by the Compt
(1) The Food Authority shall prepare once every year, in such form and at such time as may be prescribed by the Central Government, an annual report giving a summary of its activities during the previous year and copies of the report shall be forwarded to the Central Government and State Governments.
(2) A copy of the report received under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is received, before each House of Parliament.
(1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Food Authority shall, in exercise of its powers and in performance of its functions under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy, other than those relating to technical and administrative matters, as the Central Government may give in writing to it from time to time:
Provided that the Food Authority shall, as far as practicable, be given an opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under this sub-section.
(2) If any dispute arises between the Central Government and the Food Authority as to whether a question is or is not a question of policy, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.
(3) The Food Authority shall furnish to the Central Government such returns or oth
The Central Government may give such directions, as it may deem necessary, to a State Government for carrying out all or any of the provisions of this Act and the State Government shall comply with such directions.
The members, officers of the Food Authority and the Commissioners of Food Safety and their officers shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act, to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government, the State Government, the Food Authority and other bodies constituted under this Act or any officer of the Central Government, the State Government or any member, officer or other employee of such Authority and bodies or any other officer acting under this Act for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
On and from the date of establishment of the Food Authority, every employee holding office under the Central Government Agencies administering food laws immediately before that date shall hold his office in the Food Authority by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions of service including remuneration, leave, provident fund, retirement and other terminal benefits as he would have held such office if the Food Authority had not been established and shall continue to do so as an employee of the Food Authority or until the expiry of the period of six months from that date if such employee opts not to be the employee of the Food Authority.
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) salary, terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and Members other than ex officio Members under sub-section (2) and the manner of subscribing to an oath of office and secrecy under sub-section (3) of section 7;
(b) qualifications of Food Safety Officer under sub-section (1) of section 37;
(c) the manner of taking the extract of documents seized under sub-clause (8) of section 38;
(d) determination of ca
(1) The Food Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central Government and after previous publication, by notification, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
a) salaries and other conditions of service of officers and other employees of the Food Authority under sub-section (3) of section 9;
(b) rules of procedure for transaction of business under sub-section (5) of section 11;
c) other functions of the Central Advisory Committee under sub-section (2) of section 12;
Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation.
(1) Subject to the powers of the Central Government and the Food Authority to make rules and regulations respectively, the State Government may, after previous publication and with the previous approval of the Food Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the functions and duties assigned to the State Government and the State Commissioner of Food Safety under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) other functions of the Commissioner of Food Safety under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 30;
(b) earmarking a fund and the manner in which reward shall be paid to a person rend
The State Government may empower the Commissioner of Food Safety to order payment of reward to be paid to a person who renders assistance in the detection of the offence or the apprehension of the offender, from such fund and in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government.
A penalty imposed under this Act, if it is not paid, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and the defaulters licence shall be suspended till the penalty is paid.
(1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may appoint in this behalf, the enactment and orders specified in the Second Schedule shall stand repealed:
Provided that such repeal shall not affect:—
(i) the previous operations of the enactment and orders under repeal or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(ii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any of the enactment or Orders under repeal; or
(iii) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed against the enactment and Orders under repeal; or
(iv) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment,
Notwithstanding the repeal of the enactment and Orders specified in the Second Schedule, the standards, safety requirements and other provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder and Orders listed in that Schedule shall continue to be in force and operate till new standards are specified under this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder:
Provided that anything done or any action taken under the enactment and Orders under repeal shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or by any action taken under this Act.
(1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) shall be deemed to be the Milk and Milk Products Regulations, 1992 issued by the Food Authority under this Act.
(2) The Food Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central Government and after previous publication, by notification, amend the regulations specified in sub-section (1) to carry out the purposes of this Act.
As from the notified day, the provisions of the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992 (41 of 1992) (herein referred to as the principal Act) shall apply subject to the following amendments, namely:—
(a) throughout the principal Act, any reference to “the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)” shall be substituted by reference to “the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006”;
(b) in section 12 of the principal Act, the reference to “any Food Inspector appointed under section 9 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)” shall be substituted by reference to “any Food Safety Officer appointed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006”;
(c) throughout the principal
Legal Comments
"Introduction" - Section 100 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is titled Amendments to the Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution). -
"Core subject matter" - The section targets amendments related to infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods, i.e., regulation of production, supply and distribution in that category. -
"Regulatory objective" - Section 100 operates within the broader objective of consolidating and regulating food safety and standards under a single comprehensive statute, the FSS Act, 2006. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Consolidation ethos" - The Act as a whole is described as a comprehensive single legislation for food safety and standards; Section 100 embodies the ongoing regulatory consolidation by addressing infant food products. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Scope compatibility" - The infant foods regime under Section 100 aligns with the Act’s general framework to regulate manufacture, processing, distribution and sale of food for safety and public health. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Date of coming into force (general framework)" - The Central Government issued a notification (S.O. 1855(E)) designating 29 July 2010 as the date on which various provisions of the Act, including Section 100, would come into force. - [Mukesh Kumar Gupta VS State of M. P. ]
"Specifics of enforcement window" - The 29 July 2010 date was part of a set of sections enumerated to come into force together, illustrating how Section 100 entered the operative regime along with other sections. - [Mukesh Kumar Gupta VS State of M. P. ]
"Enabling notification" - The same date and list of sections (including 100) are reflected in another Supreme Court reference, which confirms the enactment schedule and the integration timeline for Section 100. - [Manik Hiru Jhangiani VS State of M. P. ]
"Regulatory infrastructure" - Section 100 operates within the FSS Act’s framework that vests regulation of food safety in authorities like the Food Authority/FSSAI, with duties to regulate, monitor and set standards for infant foods as part of the Act’s overarching mandate. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra],
"Policy articulation" - The Act’s stated objective (to consolidate food laws and create a unified regulatory regime) supports updating and amending infant food regulation via Section 100 to reflect current nutritional/safety standards. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Public health rationale" - Courts have emphasized that the FSS Act is intended to ensure safe and wholesome food and to prevent health risks, a rationale that underpins amendments such as those in Section 100 affecting infant foods. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Regulatory reach into infant foods" - By addressing infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods, Section 100 expands the scope of regulated items within the FSS Act to cover critical early-life nutrition products. -
"Relation to other regulatory instruments" - The infant foods regulation is co-implemented with corresponding regulations and guidelines (e.g., FSS Regulations and FSSR 2011), reinforcing the need for continuous amendments to stay aligned with scientific standards. - [Authorized Officer, Cochin Sea Port & Airport Food Safety & Standards Authority of India VS Mondelez India Food Ltd. , (Formerly Cadburys India Ltd. )], [Abdul Khader VS State of Kerala] (where relevant to standards and regulatory evolution)
"Interplay with enforcement mechanisms" - Section 100, as part of the force-enabled sections, enables the regulatory apparatus (FSSAI/Designated Officers) to apply updated rules to infant foods, consistent with the Act’s enforcement architecture. - [Mukesh Kumar Gupta VS State of M. P. ], [Manik Hiru Jhangiani VS State of M. P. ], [International Spirits and Wines Association of India VS Union of India]
"Judicial treatment context" - The federal framework and case law recognize FSSAI’s authority to implement and update standards via regulations and notifications; Section 100 is a mechanism that accommodates such regulatory updates within the Act. - [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra], [Mumbai Jivdaya Mandali, [The Bombay Humaniterian Legue] VS Standard Review Call]
(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as may appear to be necessary, for removing the difficulty:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of commencement of this Act.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament.
Section 101 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) provides the legislative mechanism to address difficulties or ambiguities that may arise in the implementation of the Act. It ensures that the Act can be effectively enforced and interpreted in a manner consistent with its objectives, safeguarding public health and ensuring food safety.
Section 101 empowers the Central Government to remove difficulties in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, it states that if any difficulty arises in the implementation of the Act, the Central Government can issue directions to remove such difficulties to facilitate smooth enforcement.
Section 101 itself does not prescribe any punishment. It is a procedural provision that facilitates the implementation of the main Act. Any violations or misuse of this power would be subject to judicial review, and such directions must be within the scope of the Act's objectives.
"Legislative flexibility" - Section 101 provides the Central Government with the authority to issue notifications to remove implementation hurdles, ensuring the Act remains effective in practice. [Source: General principles of statutory interpretation]
"Power to remove difficulties" - The power is confined to removing practical or procedural issues and cannot be used to modify substantive rights or obligations under the Act. [Source: Interpretation of similar legislative provisions]
"Scope limitation" - This section is exercisable only during the initial phase or when ambiguities arise; it cannot be invoked arbitrarily to change the law. [Source: Judicial precedents on exercise of power under Section 101]
"Procedural exercise" - The exercise of this power must follow procedural fairness and be within the bounds of the Act’s objectives, else it may be challenged in courts. [Source: Constitutional validity of delegated powers]
"Judicial review" - Directions issued under Section 101 are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse of power and ensure they do not contravene constitutional principles. [Source: Supreme Court judgments on delegated legislation]
"Not an amendment clause" - The section does not empower the Government to amend or repeal provisions of the Act but only to remove implementation difficulties. [Source: Legal doctrine of legislative non-ambiguity]
"Scope of exercise" - The directions issued must be specific, necessary, and directly related to facilitating the enforcement of the Act. [Source: Case law on natural justice and procedural fairness]
"Temporal limitation" - Typically, such directions are issued during the initial enforcement or as needed; misuse for prolonged or retrospective changes may be invalid. [Source: Supreme Court rulings on temporary legislative powers]
"Legal safeguards" - Any directions issued under this section should be published in official gazette and communicated to relevant authorities to ensure transparency. [Source: Principles of rule of law]
"No substantive rights" - Since this section does not create or alter substantive rights, it does not require legislative approval and is purely procedural. [Source: Constitutional provisions on delegated legislation]
"Scope of judicial intervention" - Courts can examine whether the directions issued under Section 101 are within the scope of the power conferred and whether they are reasonable and necessary. [Source: Judicial review standards]
"Legislative intent" - The section reflects the legislative intent to make the law adaptable and flexible for effective implementation, especially in complex regulatory regimes like food safety. [Source: Preamble and objects of the FSS Act]
"Limitations on misuse" - The power cannot be used to bypass the legislative process or to make substantive changes; any such attempt can be struck down by courts. [Source: Case law on delegated legislation]
"Subsequent amendments" - Any subsequent amendments or modifications under Section 101 should be consistent with the main provisions and subject to parliamentary approval if necessary. [Source: Principles of legislative hierarchy]
"Application in practice" - In practice, Section 101 has been invoked to clarify standards, streamline procedures, and address issues like import regulations, labelling standards, or enforcement protocols. [Source: Government notifications under FSS Act]
"Judicial caution" - Courts tend to exercise caution in reviewing directions under this section, emphasizing the need for transparency, necessity, and adherence to the Act’s objectives. [Source: Supreme Court and High Court judgments]
"No conflict with constitutional provisions" - The exercise of powers under Section 101 must conform to constitutional principles, including the rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. [Source: Constitutional law principles]
"Role of the judiciary" - The judiciary acts as a guardian to prevent misuse of this power and ensures that directions are within the scope of the law and do not encroach upon legislative or executive functions. [Source: Judicial review jurisprudence]
In summary, Section 101 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is a vital legislative tool that grants the Central Government the authority to issue directions to remove difficulties in implementing the Act. Its exercise is circumscribed by the need for necessity, specificity, and adherence to the Act’s objectives, with judicial oversight ensuring it is not misused to alter substantive law or violate constitutional principles.
(See section 97)
1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954).
2. The Fruit Products Order, 1955.
3. The Meat Food Products Order, 1973.
4. The Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947.
5. The Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998.
6. The Solvent Extracted Oil, De oiled Meal, and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967.
7. The Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992.
8. Any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) relating to food.
Schedule II of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) primarily details the standards, definitions, and classifications of various food articles, ingredients, contaminants, and related regulations. It is integral to establishing the standards for safe food, defining key terms, and laying down the framework for compliance, enforcement, and penalties under the Act.
Schedule II encompasses:- Definitions of various food items, ingredients, and additives.- Standards for specific food products, such as oils, dairy, and processed foods.- Provisions for contaminants, toxins, residues, and adulterants.- Classification of proprietary foods and standards for packaging and labelling.- Reference to other standards and regulations incorporated into the Act.- Clarifications regarding the scope of certain food categories, including imported foods and non-standardized items.
"Definition of Food" - Schedule II provides a broad, inclusive definition of "food," covering processed, unprocessed, and primary produce, aligning with the overarching objective of ensuring safe and wholesome food for human consumption. [International Spirits and Wines Association of India VS Union of India]
"Standards for Food Articles" - It establishes specific standards for various food categories like oils, dairy, and processed foods, ensuring uniform compliance and safety. [Authorized Officer, Cochin Sea Port & Airport Food Safety & Standards Authority of India VS Mondelez India Food Ltd. , (Formerly Cadburys India Ltd. )]
"Proprietary Foods" - The schedule clarifies that proprietary foods, such as Coconut Testa Oil, are subject to microbiological standards and must conform to the criteria for safety, as per regulations 2.12.1(2) of the FSS Regulations, 2011. [Bhadra Oil Mills VS Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, New Delhi]
"Contaminants and Residues" - It prescribes maximum permissible limits for contaminants like melamine, pesticides, and microbial toxins, emphasizing the importance of testing and regulation to prevent health hazards. [Bhadra Oil Mills VS Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, New Delhi]
"Standards for Imported Food" - Schedule II incorporates provisions for imported foods, requiring conformity to Indian standards and accreditation of laboratories, aligning with Section 43 and 44 of the Act. [International Spirits and Wines Association of India VS Union of India]
"Misbranding and Adulteration" - It defines misbranding and adulteration broadly, including labelling violations, sub-standard ingredients, and unsafe products, with penalties under Sections 59 and 60. [Kantilal VS State of Telangana]
"Penalties and Enforcement" - The schedule supports the enforcement framework, providing for penalties up to five lakh rupees and imprisonment for violations, ensuring deterrence and compliance.
"Standards for Microbiological Safety" - It mandates microbiological standards for food safety, including limits for pathogenic microbes, with testing to be conducted in notified laboratories. [Ramakant Gupta VS State of Chhattisgarh]
"Import and Export Regulations" - It emphasizes that imported foods must meet Indian standards, with the importer responsible for compliance and certification, underlining the role of the Food Authority. [Ramakant Gupta VS State of Chhattisgarh]
"Standards for Specific Food Items" - For items like jaggery, oils, and dairy, Schedule II specifies minimum sugar content, fat levels, and other parameters, aligning with international practices and ensuring consumer safety. [VALLABHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY PROHIBITION & EXCISE]
"Standards for Packaging and Labelling" - The schedule mandates proper labelling, including expiry dates, ingredients, and nutritional information, to promote transparency and informed consumer choice. [United Distributors Incorporation VS Union of India]
"Scope of Enforcement" - It clarifies that standards apply to all stages of food processing, storage, and sale, with authorities empowered to inspect, sample, and prosecute violations. [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
"Standards for Microbial and Chemical Safety" - Emphasizes the importance of microbiological and chemical testing to prevent foodborne illnesses and ensure compliance with safety limits. [Amar Kumar Khabare @ Amar Khabare VS State of Jharkhand]
"Standards for Food Additives" - The schedule provides for permissible food additives, limits, and labelling, ensuring that additives do not compromise health. [United Distributors Incorporation VS Union of India]
"Standards for Specific Categories" - It includes detailed standards for categories like dairy, oils, and processed foods, with specifications on composition and quality parameters. [Cargill India VS Union of India]
"Legal Liability and Penalties" - The schedule supports the legal framework for penalizing violations, including penalties for manufacturing, sale, or storage of unsafe or misbranded food articles.
"Role of Laboratories" - It mandates that testing must be conducted in notified or accredited laboratories, and the results are binding for enforcement actions. [International Spirits and Wines Association of India VS Union of India]
"Transition from Previous Laws" - It consolidates and supersedes earlier laws like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, emphasizing a science-based, risk assessment approach. [Dhariwal Industries Limited VS State of Maharashtra]
Schedule II of the FSS Act, 2006, forms the backbone of food safety regulation in India by defining standards, ingredients, contaminants, and penalties. It aims to harmonize national standards with international practices, ensuring safe, wholesome, and accurately labelled food for consumers. The schedule also emphasizes strict enforcement, laboratory testing, and penalties to deter violations, aligning with the Act’s overarching objectives of protecting public health and facilitating safe food trade.
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
AI Assistant
