Mumbai: The Maharashtra government has approached the Bombay High Court seeking to strike down central food-safety regulations and amendments it says have unlawfully eroded the state's enforcement authority under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The petition, filed through the state commissioner of food safety, contends that recent moves by the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) have established a parallel inspection and licensing regime that usurps powers meant for the state.
State alleges decentralised framework being dismantled
The petition argues that the primary objective of the Food Safety and Standards Act was to decentralise regulation and vest enforcement with state authorities — the state commissioner of food safety and designated officers. According to the plea, successive amendments and regulations issued by the Centre and FSSAI have, over time, "steadily dismantled the decentralised regime," transferring key functions to newly created central posts and authorities.
Among the central roles criticised in the petition are the creation of a Central Food Safety Officer and a Central Licensing Authority, described as posts and powers that are "foreign to the statutory framework" of the Act. The state has urged the court to quash these amendments and regulations as unconstitutional.
Court schedule and immediate relief sought
The matter was heard before a bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, and is next listed for hearing on 26 November. In its plea, the state has also sought a stay on a May 2023 order that restricts state officers from inspecting units licensed centrally without prior authorisation.
Practical impact on inspections and enforcement
At present, food businesses with a turnover of ₹50 crore or more fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Licensing Authority under FSSAI. The state government says this creates practical hurdles for routine inspection and timely enforcement actions. As a result, the state claims it must in many cases either obtain prior written permission from FSSAI or have FSSAI officers accompany state inspectors to carry out checks.
“At that time, we had a complaint, based on which the FDA commissioner (Tukaram Mundhe) allowed us to move forward. In other instances, we had to seek permission or have FSSAI officers accompany us,” an official said.
The petition highlights an instance where the state was able to suspend the food licence of Park Inn by Radisson in Navi Mumbai after complaint-driven action authorized by the FDA commissioner. The state presents such examples to demonstrate that, while action is possible, the current regime often requires additional clearances, delaying enforcement.
- Core grievance: Creation of central posts and authorities that displace state enforcement roles.
- Immediate ask: Quashing of amendments and regulations and stay on the May 2023 order limiting inspections.
- Next hearing: Bombay High Court on 26 November before a division bench.
Constitutional and administrative stakes
The state’s petition frames the dispute as more than administrative inconvenience, advancing a constitutional question about the federal balance in regulatory implementation. By invoking the original Act’s decentralisation objective, Maharashtra seeks judicial clarification on whether the Centre can unilaterally create centralised mechanisms that restrict state inspection authority.
The case could set precedent for how food-safety enforcement is shared between the Centre and states, particularly for large food-business operators that currently fall under central licensing. It may also determine procedural requirements for inspections, licence suspensions and enforcement timelines when central and state authorities have overlapping jurisdiction.
What this means for businesses and consumers
For businesses with large turnovers, the current framework requires interaction with the Central Licensing Authority, which the state says has introduced extra procedural steps for routine inspections. For consumers, the dispute raises questions about the efficiency and responsiveness of food-safety enforcement — whether action can be taken swiftly by local authorities or will be constrained by centralised processes.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling, when it comes, is likely to clarify the division of powers and may prompt either legislative or regulatory adjustments depending on the court’s reading of the Act and its intent to decentralise food-safety administration.
The case will be monitored closely by state food-safety departments, large food enterprises and hotel chains that deal with licensing norms, and by legal and administrative experts following federal regulatory powers.
