The Supreme Court questioned a PIL seeking a national task force on food safety, asking for concrete research instead of broad claims. The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved judgment after hearing the petitioner in person.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court questioned the foundation of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking creation of a national task force to oversee food safety compliance nationwide, asking the petitioner to support the plea with concrete research rather than broad assertions.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reserved judgment after hearing Dr. KA Paul, who appeared in person.
The Court expressed doubt about the petition’s lack of evidentiary material. “Other than sermons, what is the averment and what is the research you have done before filing this petition?” the Bench asked, pressing the petitioner to show the factual basis for his claims. The PIL requested directions to set up a national task force or committee under the Supreme Court’s supervision to ensure effective enforcement of food safety laws, and sought a nationwide, time-bound audit and inspection drive covering food manufacturers, processing units, restaurants and other commercial food outlets.
In response, the petitioner argued that unsafe, contaminated and hazardous food impacts “almost every citizen” and therefore calls for urgent judicial action. “This is affecting almost every citizen,” he submitted, stressing the public-health scope of the alleged enforcement failures. The Bench, however, indicated that such broad concerns need specific data and analysis to warrant sweeping judicial directives.
Besides asking for a monitoring body, the petition urged the Court to direct authorities to bolster inspection infrastructure, upgrade food testing laboratories and improve enforcement mechanisms across States and Union Territories. It also sought establishment of a nationwide grievance redressal and compensation system for people harmed by food-safety breaches.
The Union government, States, Union Territories and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) were named as respondents. The bench said a detailed judgment would follow. In related developments, in February the Court asked FSSAI to consider introducing mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL) on packaged foods high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat, with a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan observing such measures are crucial to protect citizens’ right to health.
In April last year the Court had directed an Expert Committee constituted by FSSAI to make recommendations within three months. On January 30, 2026, a compliance affidavit sworn by Dr. Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director, FSSAI, was filed in the Supreme Court. In that affidavit FSSAI said it intends to carry out additional research and perform a systematic mapping of a representative sample of packaged foods across solid and liquid categories; conduct consumer surveys to evaluate label use; periodically review FoPNL trends internationally; and ensure broader stakeholder consultation with industry and small, medium and micro enterprises.
The bench had noted,
“Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result. The PIL was filed with a particular purpose. It raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country. Today, what has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also makes some sense and we want the authority to take this aspect into consideration. The suggestion is that on the wrapper/packet of any pre-packaged food product, there must be warning in the form of front of-package labelling”,
Case Title: Dr. K A Paul v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE