State Laws Pertaining to Food Safety

The names of "the operator, proprietor, manager, and other relevant personnel" must be "prominently" displayed to patrons in food businesses, according to a rule issued by the Uttar Pradesh government last week. A day later, Minister Vikramaditya Singh of Himachal Pradesh declared that "every eatery and fast food cart will have to display the owner's ID" in his state as well.

During a meeting with Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge in Delhi, Singh reportedly reaffirmed his allegiance to the party's "core principles." The Himachal government refuted the statement.

Similar orders issued by police in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh for this year's Kanwar Yatra were stayed by the Supreme Court on July 22. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) "competent authority" could, in fact, make such orders, the court ruled, but police could not "usurp" this jurisdiction.

What data, then, must food outlets publish in accordance with the FSSA? Is it possible for a state's government to request the publication of more information, and are there consequences for not complying with this request?

What rules apply to the sale of food in India?
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), a body established under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) to monitor and create regulations for how food should be processed, distributed, sold, and imported to ensure "safe and wholesome" food, must be contacted by anyone wishing to operate a food business in order to register or obtain a license.

"Petty Food Manufacturers," which include small-scale food enterprises, hawkers, vendors, and stall holders, are obliged to register with the FSSAI in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food enterprises) Rules, 2011 (enacted under the FSSA).

The Petty Food Manufacturer will receive a photo identity card and a registration certificate if their registration is accepted. The card must be kept in a visible location within their vehicle, cart, or premises at all times.

Operators of somewhat large enterprises are required by the same Rules to get a licence from the food authorities. "Displayed at a prominent place at all times within the premises where the Food Business Operator carries on the food business" is another requirement for the license.

Therefore, in both cases, it is already necessary to disclose the owner's name and the location of the establishment (via the photo ID and the FSSAI-issued licence).

Any operator operating a food company without a licence faces up to six months in prison and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh under Section 63 of the FSSA.

Does the FSSA give states the authority to enact rules?
According to Section 94(1) of the FSSA, "The State Government may, after previous publication and with the previous approval of the Food Authority... 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," subject to the powers of the Central Government and the Food Authority to make rules and regulations, respectively.

Matters on which state governments can make rules are detailed in Section 94(2). States may enact regulations pertaining to "other functions of the Commissioner of Food Safety under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 30" pursuant to Section 94(2)(a).

To ensure "efficient implementation" of the Food Safety Act (FSSA) and its implementing rules and regulations, the state government appoints the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 30. Section 30(2)(f) grants the Commissioner of Food Safety a broad mandate, stating that the Commissioner may perform "such other functions as the State Government may, in consultation with the Food Authority, prescribe." Sections 30(2)(a) to (e) cover the Commissioner of Food Safety's specific responsibilities, such as conducting surveys, approving prosecution for offenses, and conducting training programs.

Moreover, the state government is empowered to establish regulations for “any other matter which is required to be, or may be prescribed, or in respect of which provision is to be made by rules by the State Government” under Section 94(2)(c).

The rule must be presented to the state assembly for approval "as soon as may be," according to Section 94(3).

"Necessary amendments should be made to the Food Safety and Standards Act to ensure compliance," according to a statement released by the Uttar Pradesh government on September 24.

What happens if someone violates any of the FSSA's requirements, rules, or regulations?
If a Food Business Operator fails to comply with any requirement of the FSSA or its supporting rules, the food authority can serve a ‘Improvement Notice’ upon them under Section 31 of the Act. The notification will outline the reasons the food business is suspected of violating the FSSA, the actions it needs to take, and the deadline (minimum of 14 days) for compliance.

If a business disregards this notification, their license could be suspended or, in the event of more violations, revoked.

The consequences of non-compliance are not stated in the UP directives. Penalty for violations for which no specific penalty is specified is covered in Section 58 and "may extend to two lakh rupees." A food business operator who is convicted twice for the same offence (including one under Section 58), may be required to pay double the penalty for the first conviction, with a further fine “on daily basis” which can extend up to Rs 1 lakh, and also lose their licence (Section 64).

Is it possible to dispute in court a state government's directions under the FSSA?
The prior UP and Uttarakhand police directions were contested, among other reasons, since they effectively obliged people to disclose their caste and religious affiliations.

The petitioners claimed that the orders violated Article 15(1) of the Constitution, which states that "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them," by discriminating against people based solely on their religion during the hearing in the SC on July 22.

Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the order "created conditions for the complete economic boycott of Muslim minorities," which they claimed violated Article 19(1)(g)'s prohibition on the practice of "untouchability" and supported the untouchability that was outlawed and outlawed under Article 17 of the Constitution.

The Uttar Pradesh government declared last week that protecting public health was the goal of its most recent orders, which also involve installing CCTV cameras at restaurants and launching a "state-wide verification campaign."

The Uttar Pradesh government stated that "it is necessary to implement concrete measures to ensure food safety and protect the health of the common man in order to prevent such occurrences in Uttar Pradesh." Incidents of adulterating food items like juice, dal, and roti with human waste, inedible, or dirty substances have been reported from various parts of the country.