Maharashtra Challenges FSSAI Powers in Bombay High Court

The Maharashtra government, in India, has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of several central food safety regulations and orders, alleging that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has unconstitutionally established a parallel enforcement regime that usurps the State government's powers.

The Maharashtra government has filed a petition in the Bombay High Court, through its State Commissioner of Food Safety, to challenge the constitutional validity of various central food safety regulations and orders issued by the FSSAI. The State alleges that the FSSAI has created a "parallel enforcement regime" that unlawfully encroaches upon the powers of the State government, contrary to the decentralized intent of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). Specifically, the petition targets the 2011 Licensing Regulations, the 2018 Recruitment Regulations, and the 2026 Amendment Regulations, arguing that the FSSAI Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has unlawfully created roles like ‘Central Food Safety Officer’ and ‘Central Licensing Authority’ which are not provided for in the statutory framework. The dispute escalated following a May 12, 2023 directive from FSSAI barring state food safety officers from inspecting businesses holding a central license. The outcome of this matter is not yet reported.

This case holds significant legal implications for the division of powers between the central and state governments in India, particularly concerning regulatory enforcement. It raises fundamental questions about federalism and the interpretation of statutory mandates, specifically whether a central authority can create enforcement mechanisms that bypass or supersede state-level authorities explicitly empowered by the parent act. For businesses, this dispute highlights potential ambiguities and jurisdictional conflicts in food safety regulation, which could lead to uncertainty regarding compliance and enforcement actions. The outcome will clarify the scope of FSSAI's powers versus those of state food safety authorities.

The core of this dispute lies in the interpretation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), which aims to consolidate laws relating to food and establish the FSSAI. The State of Maharashtra argues that the FSSA intended a decentralized regime where licensing and enforcement powers primarily rest with State Commissioners and their designated officers. The challenge to the constitutional validity of FSSAI regulations and orders invokes principles of constitutional law, particularly the distribution of legislative and executive powers between the Union and States under the Indian Constitution. The Bombay High Court, as a constitutional court, will adjudicate on these issues, potentially setting a precedent for the operational boundaries of central regulatory bodies vis-à-vis state authorities.

Attorneys advising food businesses, particularly those operating across states or holding central licenses, should closely monitor the proceedings and the eventual ruling of the Bombay High Court. The outcome will define the jurisdictional limits of FSSAI and state food safety authorities, impacting compliance strategies, inspection protocols, and potential enforcement actions. Businesses might need to adapt their compliance frameworks depending on whether central or state authorities are deemed to have primary enforcement jurisdiction over specific aspects of food safety. This case also serves as a reminder for legal professionals to scrutinize the constitutional and statutory basis of regulatory actions, especially when they appear to alter established federal structures.