Karnataka High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Associated Regulations

Court mandates Government to classify restaurants by size and ensure distinct health and safety standards for street vendors, food trucks, and eateries to balance public health with industry practicality

In a landmark judgment dated September 19, 2025, the Karnataka High Court, presided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, dismissed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Pradesh Hotel and Restaurants Association challenging the constitutionality of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ("FSS Act") and the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011. The petitioners, representing hotels and restaurants across Karnataka, contended that the regulatory regime imposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was impractical, arbitrary, and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners argued that the Regulations failed to distinguish between different categories of food businesses-such as large hotels, small eateries, street vendors, and food trucks-leading to unreasonable burdens especially on small and medium-scale operators. They also challenged various penal provisions, claiming them to be excessive and impractical for implementation within the Indian context.

The Court, however, undertook a comprehensive review of the legislative framework governing food safety in India, its constitutional underpinnings, and judicial precedents from the Supreme Court and other High Courts. It highlighted that the FSS Act was enacted to consolidate multiple food laws and to establish a unified, science-based regulatory regime to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food to consumers, recognizing this as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and Brihanmumbai v. Willingdon Sports Club, among others, the Court underscored that food safety regulations, including licensing and stringent penalties, are constitutionally valid measures in the interest of public health. The judgment noted that the Act and Regulations embody internationally recognized standards such as those recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and incorporate globally accepted principles like Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP).

The Court rejected the petitioners’ contentions regarding vagueness and arbitrariness, emphasizing that terms like "food business," "manufacture," "processing," and related definitions are clear when read in the context of the Act and its objectives. It affirmed that the licensing and registration provisions apply to all food businesses, including hotels and restaurants, to ensure compliance with safety standards essential for public health.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions, the Court acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns regarding impracticability in implementation, especially for small-scale food businesses and street vendors. In response, the Court issued directives mandating the Union Government to formulate detailed guidelines categorizing food businesses into small, medium, and large establishments. This classification aims to tailor compliance requirements and penalties suitably, ensuring that the regulatory framework respects the diversity of the food industry without compromising safety standards.

Furthermore, the Court directed the State Government to develop and implement specific health and safety regulations for street vendors, food trucks, and similar food service providers, with an emphasis on vigilant enforcement to protect public health.

The judgment reflects a balanced approach, recognizing the sovereign duty of the State to safeguard citizens' health while accommodating the practical realities of India's vibrant and diverse food industry. It calls for continued efforts to harmonize food safety standards with socio-economic considerations, ensuring that the right to safe food is effectively upheld for all consumers.

Bottom Line:

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulations framed thereunder are constitutional, valid, and necessary to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food; regulatory regime includes hotels, restaurants, street vendors, and food businesses of all scales; mandates licensing, hygienic practices, and penal provisions; bifurcation of standards for small, medium, and large food establishments recommended for effective implementation.

Statutory provision(s): Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (Sections 3,16,18,19,21,23,24,26,31,32,34,38,42,43,47,50-58,65,68,70,76,80,89,97), Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (repealed), Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (repealed provisions), Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 39(e),(f), 47, 51A(h),(j))

Karnataka Pradesh Hotel and Restaurants Association (R) v. Union of India, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2804195