The Bombay High Court on August 29 sharply rebuked the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA), led by Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, over what it called an “undue haste” and a “pedantic instead of pragmatic” approach in two separate enforcement matters.
In the first, the court allowed five eateries at the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) premises in Mumbai’s Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC) to reopen after a fresh inspection found them 88% compliant with food-safety rules.
The FDA had initially suspended their licences following an inspection that flagged hygiene concerns and questioned the arrangement under which Shirke Infrastructure operated outlets whose licences were in MCA’s name.
In the second case, the court directed the FDA to withdraw its cancellation of drug-sale licences at Cipla Pharma & Life Sciences’ Pune facility and restart the process, after concerns were raised over the fairness of the hearing procedure. The FDA agreed to withdraw both orders, while the court stressed that regulatory enforcement must be firm but also lawful, proportionate and procedurally fair.
Court Questions FDA’s Approach
During the MCA case, the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad questioned why the FDA had continued with the suspension despite a fresh inspection showing substantial compliance.
The court said there was no provision in law that automatically prohibited the contractual arrangement involving Shirke Infrastructure and said it had previously asked the department to “apply its mind” and take a pragmatic approach. Instead, the bench said, the FDA had adopted a “pedantic instead of pragmatic view”.
The court went further, warning concerned officials of contempt proceedings and possible imprisonment if its directions were disregarded. “Do you feel you are a lord and you can do anything?” the bench asked while questioning the department’s repeated haste in passing orders without adequately analysing the law.
Following the remarks, Maharashtra FDA’s additional government pleader PP Kakade told the court that the department would withdraw the suspension order. The court then allowed the five eateries to resume operations while directing the FDA to issue a fresh notice to MCA, hear its position on the contractual arrangement and pass a reasoned order.
From Food Safety to Due Process
The MCA dispute followed an August 20 inspection of the eateries, after which the FDA suspended their licences over reported food-safety and hygiene deficiencies as well as the licensing arrangement.
A subsequent inspection showed the establishments were 88% compliant, shifting the focus of the legal dispute from immediate food-safety concerns to the FDA’s insistence on examining who was operating the premises. The MCA challenged the action before the High Court and received relief when the suspension was vacated.
MCA BKC president Ajay Desai welcomed the outcome, saying the organisation did not understand what the FDA was trying to establish by acting against a “prestigious institution” and that the court had ultimately delivered justice.
A similar concern over procedure emerged in the separate Cipla matter. The FDA had cancelled the drug-sale licences of Cipla Pharma & Life Sciences’ carrying-and-forwarding facility at Wadki in Pune following alleged violations involving the storage, packaging, documentation and recall process for Reactin Plus tablets.
Cipla challenged the action, particularly after a personal hearing was scheduled on a state-declared public holiday and its request for an adjournment was not properly accommodated. The High Court criticised the FDA’s approach as hasty and contrary to principles of natural justice, but did not declare that the underlying regulatory concerns were baseless.
Instead, it directed the FDA to withdraw the cancellation and begin the process afresh through a proper notice and hearing.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Regulatory agencies exist to protect the public, and strong action against unsafe food, medicines or negligent businesses is essential for public health. But regulatory power becomes meaningful only when it is exercised with consistency, proportionality and respect for due process.
The Bombay High Court’s intervention is therefore less about choosing between regulators and businesses and more about reinforcing a basic democratic principle: accountability applies to institutions entrusted with protecting citizens too.
As Maharashtra continues its intensified food and drug-safety enforcement, how can regulators ensure that the urgency to protect public health never comes at the cost of fairness and reasoned decision-making?
Also Read: India Deploys New Fertiliser Tracking Tool To Spot Shortages Before Farmers Feel The Impact
