Food safety regulation
🥗 Part 1: Food Safety Regulation
1. Introduction to Food Safety Regulation
Food safety regulation is a system of laws, rules, and procedures that ensure the food supply is safe, clean, and fit for consumption. In India, food safety is governed mainly by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, administered by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
Objectives:
Protect consumer health
Prevent food adulteration
Standardize food quality
Enforce hygiene and labeling norms
2. Key Provisions of the FSS Act, 2006
Section 26 – Responsibility of the food business operator.
Section 31 – Licensing and registration.
Section 32-36 – Penalties for violations like adulteration, misbranding, etc.
Section 38-40 – Powers of food safety officers.
Section 61-66 – Civil and criminal liabilities.
3. Landmark Case Laws on Food Safety
Case 1: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (Nestlé – Maggi Case, 2015)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: Maggi noodles were found to contain excessive lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG). FSSAI ordered a nationwide recall.
Held: The Bombay High Court initially upheld the recall but later allowed the company to retest samples from certified labs.
Importance:
Strengthened the precautionary principle in food safety.
Emphasized scientific testing and transparency in regulatory actions.
Case 2: Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. FSSAI (2014)
Court: Delhi High Court
Facts: Coca-Cola challenged FSSAI's order on grounds of inconsistent standards.
Held: The court held that companies must comply with all prescribed safety standards, even if products have international approvals.
Importance:
Reinforced that domestic laws prevail over international certifications.
Case 3: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2010)
Court: Allahabad High Court
Facts: Vendor sold adulterated mustard oil. Lab tests showed contamination.
Held: Court convicted the vendor under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, precursor to FSS Act.
Importance:
Shows strict judicial stance against adulteration under public health laws.
Case 4: Godrej Industries Ltd. v. FSSAI (2017)
Court: Bombay High Court
Facts: FSSAI denied approval of a product despite earlier clearance.
Held: The Court ruled that regulators must act reasonably and transparently, especially when reversing earlier approvals.
Importance:
Ensures predictability and fairness in regulatory actions.
Case 5: N.D. Khalsa v. State of Haryana (2013)
Facts: A public servant was suspended for failing to act against food adulteration in his district.
Held: Court upheld the suspension, stating food safety is a core responsibility of the administration.
Importance:
Shows administrative accountability in ensuring food safety.
Case 6: Consumer Education and Research Society v. Union of India (2009)
Facts: PIL challenged labeling practices on packaged food.
Held: Court directed the government to revise labeling norms to improve consumer awareness.
Importance:
Reinforces the right to informed choices under food safety law.
✅ Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Precautionary Principle | Regulatory bodies can act even before harm is proven. |
| Right to Health | Implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution. |
| Scientific Evidence | Mandatory for regulatory enforcement. |
| Public Accountability | Government officers can be held liable for lapses. |
| Fair Hearing | Required in enforcement proceedings like recalls or license suspension. |
🆔 Part 2: Digital ID Systems and Legality – Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction to Digital ID Systems
Digital Identity Systems are platforms that assign a unique digital identity to individuals for accessing government or private services. In India, the most prominent example is Aadhaar, governed by the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
Benefits:
Efficient welfare delivery
Reduction in fraud
Inclusion of marginalized sections
Concerns:
Privacy infringement
Surveillance
Data security and misuse
2. Constitutional and Legal Issues
Right to Privacy (Article 21)
Voluntariness vs. Mandatory Use
Data Protection Principles
Proportionality Doctrine
3. Landmark Case Laws on Digital ID Legality
Case 1: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Bench: 9-Judge Constitution Bench
Facts: Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Importance:
Created the constitutional foundation for challenging digital ID systems like Aadhaar on privacy grounds.
Case 2: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case, 2018)
Citation: (2019) 1 SCC 1
Bench: 5-Judge Constitution Bench
Facts: Constitutionality of Aadhaar and the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
Held:
Aadhaar is constitutional, but cannot be made mandatory for services like banking or telecom.
Mandatory only for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund of India.
Struck down Section 57 allowing private use.
Importance:
Upheld limited use of digital ID.
Emphasized consent, data protection, and proportionality.
Case 3: Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India (Pending)
Facts: Challenge to mandatory use of Aadhaar for Covid vaccine registration and telecom.
Status: Ongoing litigation.
Importance:
Examines whether emergency use of digital ID violates voluntary nature and privacy.
Case 4: Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017)
Facts: Challenge to linking PAN with Aadhaar for tax compliance.
Held: Court allowed it, citing legitimate state interest in curbing black money, but subject to privacy safeguards.
Importance:
Shows how proportionality is used to balance state interest and individual rights.
Case 5: Beghar Foundation v. UIDAI (2019 – Karnataka High Court)
Facts: NGO was denied government aid for not providing Aadhaar-linked details.
Held: Court ruled against UIDAI, stating no person should be excluded from benefits due to technical Aadhaar issues.
Importance:
Reinforces inclusiveness and non-exclusion in welfare delivery.
Case 6: Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India (2017)
Facts: Petition to link mobile numbers with Aadhaar.
Held: Court allowed it temporarily under executive directions but later restricted by Puttaswamy (2018).
Importance:
Reveals judicial caution in expanding digital ID mandates without parliamentary backing.
✅ Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Protected under Article 21; all digital ID laws must comply. |
| Proportionality Test | State must show necessity, legality, and minimal intrusion. |
| Voluntariness | Digital IDs must not be forced for unrelated services. |
| Non-Exclusion | Technical failures must not deny citizens welfare rights. |
| Consent and Control | Users must have control over their personal data. |
✅ Conclusion
Both food safety regulation and digital ID systems represent modern regulatory frameworks aimed at improving public services. However, both areas demand a careful balance between public interest and individual rights. Courts have played a crucial role in shaping this balance through enforcement of constitutional values, natural justice, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments