Role of judiciary in the implementation of food adulteration laws in India
Introduction
Adulterationlis one ofthe hariving businessed in India in whiclhfoodhs an kasy and major target
Adulteration is adding unwanted substances to the food substance having asimilar appearance
or colour to increasethe volume of the product. In today's money-mindedmarket, an ever
growing population and their ingreasing needs. people are getting involved in malpractices s0
that they can be in a profitable position by increasing the number of products using cheap
substitutes. Thus, adulteration in food substances has increased drastically. Adulteration might
be profiteering for the businesses but it is hazardous to public health as it lowers the quality of
the food and sometimes toxic chemicals are also added.
The Annual Public Laboratory Testing Report for 2014-15 by the Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (FSSAI) has analyzed around 74010 numbers of food samples and found
14599 numbers of samples adulterated and misbranded.
Food adulteration laws in India an insight
In India before independence. the Indian Penal Code contained provisions to take care of
noxious food. Section 272 and 273 dealt vwith the adulteration of foods and drinks to make them
noxious, and the sale of such noxious drinks. Thus adulteration is a crime under IPC punishable
with imprisonment of six months with a fine up to Rs.1000. However, the crime under IPC
arises only when the food article which is adulterated has become noxious. In this case, Ram
Dayal And Ors, v Emperor (1923): the accused was selling ghee with amixture of pig fat. The
Privy Council held that the mixing of pig fat with the ghee is noxious to the religious feelings
of the Hindus and Mohammedans but it would not come under the expression noxious as
food". Noxious inchudes " unwholesomeness or injurious to health but not repugnant to one's
feeling".
Along with this, different states had different laws enacted toprevent the adulteration of foods.
Thus, it made it difficult for the implementation authorities, as different territories dealt with
different laws for the same subject. Therefore in 1954, the central government consolidated
legal provisions and enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Itrepealed all the
laws regarding adulteration which were in force at that time. The main objective of the PFA
was to prevent ill-health of the consumer due to adulteration, protect the nutritional standard
ofa foodstuff by regulating and restricting the addition of the substitute substances. These laws
applied both to indigenously made food and imported food. Rules were framed by the Central
Committee for Food Standards* from time to time to make the Act more stringent. Thus the
Act was amended in 1964, 1976, and later in 1986. Later there were several defects found in
PFA thus to tackle the problems the central government consolidated the provisions of food
safety acts and enacted the Food Safety and Standard Act in 2006 (FSSA) The PFA act was
repealed and several other Acts such as the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, the Fruit
Products Order, 1955, the Meat Food Products Order, I973, etc got repealed.
Currently. the laws which are in force are:
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses)
Regulation, 2011.
Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulation, 2011.
Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sampling Analysis) Regulation, 2011.
Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives)
Regulation, 2011.
Position under the Indian PenalCode, 1860
Under IPCoffences of adulteration were mentioned under sections 272
the extent of6 months imprisonment and fine to the extent ofRs. 1000. and 273, punishable to
Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal made amendments to the provision in the However, the states like
offences punishable up to life imprisonment and fine. Orissa also followed1970s
the
and made the
same
amended the provision in 1999. Taking these amendments in mind the central path and
made few offences punishable up to life imprisonment but all these government
after the introduction of FSSA 2006. This 2006 Act amendments got repealed
safety but did not repeal the state amendments in IPC. repealed all provisions relating to food
In the case of M/S PepsiCo India
Holdings
state government filed an FIR against the private limited and anr. v. State OfU.P (2010), the
Company under Section 272/273 of IPC. This action
of the state was challenged by Pepsico India
Holding. Their main contention was that
272/273 of IPC was repealed by the
the 2006 Act occupies the complete2006 Act. In the case of food adulteration and food section
field. The High Court was of the view that the safety.
procedure and inquiry was to be done under the 2006 entire
would be unjustified. Thus applying the principle of Act and invoking the provision of IPC
generalia specialihus non deragant, the
provision of the Indian Penal Code was held inapplicable
this case. by the High Court of Allahabad in
However, in the State of
Court held that if an act Maharashtra
v. Sayyad Hassan
or an omission constitutes anSayyed Subham (2018); the Supreme
offence under two enactments
prescribes punishment for the same. The offender may be prosecuted and and
or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished under either
punished twice for the same offence". Thus just
because the provisions of FSSA mention penalties
cannot be prosecuted under IPC. for the offence, it does not imply that one
Loopholes in the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006
The unorganised sectors are ignored in the Act. It contains petty
hawkers, retailers which contribute a lot to the unorganised manufacturers,
sector. It mainly
emphasises the processing industry. The primary sector is included in the Act put
the agricultural sector producing primary food is ignored.
Thu financial supply is not adequate The majority of the money allocated was uscd
to develop the infrastructure of the food authority and the remaining was utilized 1or
the establishment of laboratories,which are negligible. The lack of adequate 1o0d
industries
Go testing laboratories to serutinize the food manufacturing and processing
which ensures the hygiene quality, safety in the food.
The food authority is understaffed and underfunded and is not able to pace up with
with burcaucrats and non-technical
the increasing industry of food. Staff is filled not knowing how to handle some
persons are holding some important office ground level, the food authorities
complex issues associated with the food. Athe
There is also a shortage of licensing
are not competent to monitor the situation. the grant of a license, the penalty
officers. Provisions under the Act which authorize
may lead to corruption.
increase
in the Act, which unnecessarily
There are many undefined words and tems
before its expiration the
limitation time is only one year,
o g a t o n pernod. The notice. Adopting international standards
donetete
case has to be brought under the authority of the domestic food sector and the
without realising the compliance capacity challenging.
ot
implementation of these international standards becomes
procedures followed by the laboratories while
There
s a n e a t n c l u d
are doubts about the standard monosodium
focus when lead and
scrutinizing the products. This came into
doub
albia n t
Maharashtra, Punjab, and Kerala banned
glutamate were found in Maggi. States likefound in Maggi in states like Karnataka,
the product, however, the amount of lead under safe levels. Thus this questions the
West Bengal, Goa, and Chhattisgarh were different states.
defined in
confusion around the procedures and standards
Standards Authority of ndia (2015) (the Maggi
In Nestle bhdia Limitedv. The Food Safery and distribution, etc
was ordered to stop the manufacturing,
Case). In this. the petitioner- company
of the 9 types of a variant of products of
noodles manufactured by the company. The court
followed. The company, a day prior to
expressed that the principle of natural justice was not with the safety
the impugned order, recalled all the productsthetillthe authorities were satisfied
laboratories where the products were tested for
of the product. And it was also realised that recognised under the Act, and relying on their
high quantities of lead, were not accredited and
test result would not be justified.
The suprenme role of the judiciary
1. InCentre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2013), the writ petitioner
are
alleged the adulteration of soft drinks. The Supreme Court observed that people
and it is
protected under Article 21 against the hazardous and injurious food article
the duty of the state to ensure such rights are protected under Article 47. It was held
that the number of insecticides and pesticides contained in the food article was
beyond the tolerable amount which is not good for children's health and therefore
directed the state authorities to efectively implement the statutory scheme and penal
provisions and directed the food authority to conduct periodical monitoring of fruits
and vegetable markets while taking into çonsideration the prevalent national and
in{ernational standards and practices and shall beguided by the general principle of
food safety.
Sothete
In Swami Achyutanand Tirth &Orsv. Union OIndia &Ors, (2016). the petitioncr
filed public interest litigation highlighting the concern about the growing sale of
adulterated and synthetic milk all over India. Thus Public interest litigation was
iled to seek direction from the state and central government to take appropriate
steps to curb the [Link] the court issucd the following dircctions:
The Union and state governments should take appropriate steps to implement the
FSSA in a more effective way.
To inform the dairy owners and retailers that stringent steps would be taken if any
chemical adulterant is found in the milk.
The State Food Safety Authority (SFSA) should identify high-risk areas and times
when there are high chances of ingesting milk and milk products, and collect
samples from those areas.
State Food Safety Authorities should ensure that all laboratories should
obtain NABL (National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Laboratories) accreditation along with having well-equipped labCalibrationtesting
infrastructure and technical persons to handle it.
Measures should be taken by the SFSA and district authorities for a sampling of the
products including spot testing for conducting qualitative tests of adulteration in the
food.
Snap short survey tests should be conducted periodically at the state and
levels. national
State Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary or the
Secretary of Dairy
Department and District Level Committee headed by the concerned
Collector shall be constituted to take a review of the work done in District
adulteration by the authorities. curbing the
The concerned state department shall set up a website that will be
responsible for
creating awareness about complaint mechanism functioning and the responsibilities
of food safety authorities. The website will have the
contact details of
officers and a toll-free telephone number. Directing the concerned food safetyto
put a check on corruption and unethical practices by Food Authorities government
and their
officers by evolving the complaint mechanism
The State food authority/ Commissioner of food safety shall inform the
public about the ill effect on health due to adulteration, educate the general
children
workshops, etc. in determining adulterated components in food. In short, it's through
duty to increase awareness among people. their
Conclusion
The laws are descriptive and considered as good laws but the problem lies in
their poor
implementation. The need was felt to bring amendments to the Food Safety and Standard Act.
In accordance with the interim order by the Supreme Court, the
government ought to review
the Food Safety and Standard Act rules and regulations to address the concerns of the court
regarding food adulteration and implementation of the Act 2006. Therefore the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare on September 23. 2020, framed a Food Safety and Standards
(Amendment) Bill, 2020. It aims to upgrade and improve the functioning and jurisdiction of
the Ac. However, apart from the consolidation of the laws relating to
food safety, qualityofand
standards, the food authority should focus on the systematic and scientific development the
food industries. The implementation of the legislation is still at its beginning stage and the food
authorities would require time to bring the legislation into its full force.
References
https:/[Link]/fileadmin'user upload'pdfsNDA%201n%620The%20Medi
a/Ouotes/Some food for thought,pdf
[Link]
officials-speak-up-on-fssai-780864
htps://[Link]/blog/post/2016/08/05/directions-for-curbing-milk
adulteration-issued-government-asked-to-evolve-a-complaint-mechanism-to
check-corruption-by-food-authorities!
[Link]
[Link]
food-safety-and-standards-amendment-bill-2020/
https:/[Link]/reports/[Link]
[Link]
well-holds-sc-read-order/
[Link]
[Link]
in-india/
