|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uttarakhand HC quashes criminal proceedings against Nestlé
|
|
Wednesday, 22 July, 2026, 12 : 00 PM [IST]
|
|
Ashwani Maindola, New Delhi
|
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Nestlé India Ltd and its officials stemming from the 2015 nationwide Maggi noodles safety controversy.
The High Court set aside the complaint cases, cognisance orders, and summoning orders under Sections 52 and 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, ruling that the prosecution was "legally unsustainable" and an abuse of the judicial process.
“In the present matters, the complaints do not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements governing prosecution of companies and their nominees. Consequently, continuation of proceedings against the applicants alone is legally impermissible,” the court observed.
The legal action originated after food safety authorities collected samples of "MAGGI 2-Minute Noodles" in May 2015. A report from the State Food and Drug Testing Laboratory in Rudrapur subsequently declared the product "misbranded" and "unsafe."
However, the High Court observed that the Rudrapur facility lacked NABL accreditation and was not notified by the FSSAI under Section 43 of the FSS Act at the time of testing.
Under statutory provisions, a laboratory must fulfil both criteria to conduct legally binding food analyses. Fresh tests conducted at accredited facilities, including CFTRI, Mysore, under directions from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court had previously cleared the samples as compliant.
“Continuation of criminal prosecution against the applicants on the basis of reports issued by laboratories lacking statutory competence cannot be sustained. A perusal of Sections 3(1)(p) and 43 of the FSS Act makes it abundantly clear that a 'Food Laboratory' must be both accredited by NABL and recognised/notified by the Food Authority. Unless both conditions stand satisfied, the laboratory cannot legally undertake analysis under the Act,” the order stated.
The High Court also identified multiple procedural defects that vitiated the prosecution. These included taking cognisance of the statutory limitation period without written justification, securing sanction from an unauthorised Chief Medical Officer rather than the Commissioner of Food Safety, and failing to properly summoning of the company and its nominees as required under Section 66 of the Act.
Observing that continuing the trial would subject the applicants to unnecessary harassment in a case bound to fail, the court discharged Nestlé India and all co-applicants from the proceedings.
Commenting on the order, Ashwin Bhadri, CEO of Equinox Labs, noted that food labelling is one of the primary ways consumers assess a product before making a purchase. Clear and accurate information on ingredients, allergens, nutrition, and product claims enables consumers to make informed decisions based on their dietary and health needs.
“For brands, compliant labelling is equally important as it builds credibility, demonstrates transparency, and reduces the risk of regulatory action. A strong food safety ecosystem depends not only on safe products but also on truthful and scientifically substantiated information reaching consumers,” said Bhadri.
He added that companies should treat labelling as a scientific and regulatory requirement rather than merely a marketing exercise. Every claim appearing on a food label must be supported by robust evidence and aligned with applicable FSSAI regulations.
“Labelling should also be viewed as a dynamic compliance requirement rather than a one-time activity. As regulations evolve and scientific guidance is updated, companies must periodically review their labels to ensure continued compliance. Regular label audits, documentation supporting claims, and third-party verification wherever required can significantly reduce the risk of misrepresentation and regulatory action. Ultimately, transparent labelling is about building long-term consumer trust,” Bhadri added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|