“From Mislabel to Misuse: Judicial Pushback in Food Safety Enforcement”

The FSS Act takes a balanced approach to food safety enforcement, especially when it comes to misbranding. Section 3(1)(zf) spells out what counts as “misbranded food”: its food packaged or labelled to cover up bad quality, exaggerate how good it is, or mislead people.

Introduction

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — better known as the FSS Act — sets out to protect public health without turning food regulation into a heavy-handed mess. It gives regulators a lot of power, but insists they use it with solid science, fairness, and some common sense, so consumers stay safe and food businesses are not needlessly punished.

Lately, though, there has been a wave of cases and even criminal charges over minor labelling mistakes — stuff that is easy to fix. A lot of these actions rest on lab reports from places that do not even have the right accreditation or are not authorised to do the testing. As a result, people have started questioning whether the process is fair or just arbitrary, and if these practices are damaging the credibility of the whole regulatory system.

Courts have started paying closer attention. Judges and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) have made it clear: You cannot prosecute someone based on a flimsy lab report or harmless labelling issues. The law does not stand for that. This growing body of legal decisions keeps pulling everything back to the basics: scientific accuracy, fair process, and penalties that actually fit the violation.

Statutory framework governing food safety enforcement meaning and scope of misbranding

The FSS Act takes a balanced approach to food safety enforcement, especially when it comes to misbranding. Section 3(1)(zf) spells out what counts as “misbranded food”: its food packaged or labelled to cover up bad quality, exaggerate how good it is, or mislead people. The main point? It is about stopping deception and lies, not punishing honest mistakes or tiny libelling errors that do not mislead anyone.

Following that logic, Section 32 lets Designated Officers issue an improvement notice, telling a business what is wrong and how to fix it. This shows the law’s real focus: Helping people comply, not just punishing them. Prosecuting someone is supposed to be a last resort, not standard practice.

Section 49 goes a step further, making sure that penalties fit the crime. Authorities must look at how serious the violation was, what the intent was, the business’s past record, any risk to public health, and whether the business made extra money because of it. Section 52 sets out fines for misbranding, underlining that it is usually a civil issue — not the same as major food safety violations that could harm people.

Legal requirements for food sample analysis accreditation and recognition of laboratories

The FSS Act is clear: Only labs accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) or officially recognised by the FSSAI can test food samples under Section 43. This accreditation is not just a formality; it guarantees that test results are reliable, that the labs know what they are doing, and that their reports will stand up in court. If a lab does not have the right accreditation, its test results simply do not count.

Section 47 backs this up by requiring food analysts to follow strict testing methods and write up reports that explain what they tested and how they reached their conclusions. If a report is vague, unsupported, or goes outside what the lab is allowed to test, it does not hold much weight as evidence.

And there is more: Section 46(4) gives food businesses the right to ask for a retest by a referral food laboratory. If they do not get that chance, it is a violation of due process, and any action that follows is on shaky legal ground.

Category-wise accreditation under the NABL system

One thing that gets missed a lot is that NABL accreditation is not one-size-fits-all. Labs get approved for specific kinds of products and tests — nothing more.

So, a lab that can test nutraceuticals cannot turn around and test alcoholic drinks. Another might be cleared for dairy, water, or homeopathic products, but that does not mean it can handle packaged foods. The NABL’s own rules make this totally clear: No lab can test outside its approved scope. If it does, it is just as bad as an unaccredited lab, and any results from those tests are worthless.

Regulatory developments and FSSAI advisories

1. On 29 March 2022, FSSAI issued Direction,¹ bringing the new 2022 regulations for health supplements, nutraceuticals, foods for special dietary use, medical purposes, and prebiotic/probiotic foods into effect from 1 April 2022. They did this under Section 16(5) with Section 92, FSS Act. Basically, these new rules replaced the old 2016 regulations and all their amendments. The aim? To clear up confusion, set firm guidelines, and bring in detailed schedules and permitted lists found in the annexures.

2. Later, on 4 January 2023², FSSAI sent out an advisory that made it mandatory to send food samples only to labs properly accredited and notified for the right product category and testing parameters under Sections 43(1) and 43(2), FSS Act. This step followed court rulings that threw out prosecutions based on reports from labs without valid accreditation or the right scope. Now, enforcement authorities have to check a lab’s accreditation and scope before sending out samples. If there is any doubt, they can ask the Quality Assurance Division at FSSAI Headquarters for clarification.

3. Going back a bit, on 17 January 2020³, FSSAI sent another advisory reminding everyone that minor labelling mistakes, if they do not affect food safety, should not lead straight to adjudication. Instead, authorities should issue an improvement notice under Section 32, FSS Act so businesses can fix the problem. This echoed FSSAI’s earlier stand from July 2018 [File No. 1(56)2015/Advisory/FSSAI (Pt-1)], where they pushed for proportionate enforcement and discouraged prosecution over trivial, easily fixable labelling issues.

Judicial interpretation on laboratory accreditation

Indian courts keep making it clear: Lab testing needs to be both scientifically valid and legally compliant for food safety enforcement to hold up. Courts have tossed out cases where food samples were analysed by labs without valid NABL accreditation or the right testing scope under the FSS Act. Without proper accreditation, those lab reports simply do not stand up in court.

Take Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. FSSAI⁴. The Bombay High Court ruled that whisky samples tested by a lab not accredited for alcoholic beverages broke Sections 3(p), 43, and 47, FSS Act. The analyst’s report? Thrown out, and the adjudication process fell apart. The court made it clear: Labs need valid, category-specific accreditation when they do the analysis.

The same thinking showed up in ITC Ltd. v. State of M.P.⁵. Here, the Madhya Pradesh High Court scrapped proceedings based on a lab report from a place that was not NABL-accredited or properly notified under Section 43 at the time. The court said flat out that missing accreditation and denying statutory protections means prosecution does not hold.

One more: In Shyamkumar Tulsilal Warnawal v. State of Maharashtra⁶, the Bombay High Court again said analysis by a referral food laboratory without NABL accreditation is legally worthless and cannot support criminal action. Accreditation, they insisted, is a must before any lab report can be taken seriously as evidence.

Put together, these cases drive home the point: Lab accreditation is not just a box to tick. It is a real legal requirement. Any enforcement based on reports from unaccredited or out-of-scope labs gets thrown out.

Compounding, accreditation validity, and judicial control: The consolidated enforcement framework

The Food Safety and Standards (Compounding of Offences) Regulations, 2017, along with Sections 32, 49 and 52, FSS Act, push Indian food regulation toward a more modern and practical approach. The idea is simple: Deal with minor violations quickly through compounding and fix issues, when possible, instead of rushing to criminal charges every time. Criminal prosecution is supposed to be the last step, not the first. This whole setup puts India more in line with global standards, focusing on compliance and improvement instead of just punishment.

At the same time, NABL validity orders make it clear that lab accreditation is not permanent or automatic — it depends on ongoing compliance and only lasts as long as the lab keeps meeting the rules. If a lab’s accreditation expires, gets suspended, or faces restrictions, any tests done during that period just do not count. Reports from those periods cannot be used as evidence in prosecution. Courts have picked up on this, too. Time and again, they have criticised robotic enforcement: skipping improvement notices, refusing re-tests, dragging out prosecutions, rubber-stamping sanctions, and failing to think independently. Judges call these actions an abuse of power and a violation of the Constitution, especially Articles 14 and 21.

Bringing all this together — the laws, the official guidance, the court decisions — you get a clear legal picture. Lab reports need to come from accredited labs, approved for the specific tests. Accreditation cannot be general; it has to match the category of testing. Reports outside that scope are worthless. Minor, non-deceptive labelling mistakes should be fixed, not prosecuted. People have the right to request reanalysis, and prosecution should always be the last resort. Every enforcement action under the food safety law needs to be fair and in proportion to the actual problem.

Conclusion

The FSS Act, sets up a system that is grounded in science, respects individual rights, and aims for balance. Enforcement is supposed to protect public health, but not at the cost of crushing honest businesses with needless prosecutions.

The rules are now clear. Courts, regulatory bodies, and accreditation standards all agree: you cannot base criminal cases on bad lab reports, out-of-scope testing, small labelling errors, or procedural slip-ups.

The law is moving towards balance. It gives regulators real power but also protects business owners from overreach. Food safety enforcement stays focused on evidence, correction, and sticking to the Constitution. Prosecution under the FSS Act is for real risks and intentional wrongdoing, not for minor, fixable, or technical mistakes.