The Bombay High Court will hear Maharashtra’s petition against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India on 26 November 2026. The hearing raises the question of whether the central authority can create licensing and inspection mechanisms that bypass state commissioners. State food safety officers and businesses holding central licences stand to lose or gain enforcement jurisdiction respectively. A ruling could delineate the permissible scope of the central body’s role in domestic food safety oversight.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute originated when the central regulator issued a directive in May 2023 that barred state officers from inspecting establishments that possessed a licence issued by the central authority. Maharashtra contends that the directive, together with a series of regulations, creates a parallel enforcement structure that infringes the powers granted to state commissioners under the food safety legislation. The state has moved the matter before a division bench of the Bombay High Court.

• Case Name: State of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Ors.

• Court: Bombay High Court

• Bench: Division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna

• Date: 26 November 2026 (hearing date)

• Statutes Cited: Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Food Safety and Standards (Licensing) Regulations, 2011; Food Safety and Standards (Recruitment) Regulations, 2018; Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Regulations, 2026; General Clauses Act, 1897

• Key Provisions: Sections 13 and 14 of the 2006 Act (licensing powers of state commissioners); Section 23 of the General Clauses Act (requirement of prior notice for statutory amendments)

• Primary Legal Issue: Constitutionality of central regulations that allegedly usurp state‑level licensing and inspection authority

• Petitioner Arguments: Central creation of posts such as “Central Food Safety Officer” and “Central Licensing Authority” exceeds statutory limits; May 2023 directive prevents state inspections; amendment of turnover thresholds without public notice violates Section 23 of the General Clauses Act

• Respondent Arguments: Central authority’s jurisdiction is confined to imported food articles; statutory framework permits the centre to issue regulations for uniform standards; the challenged posts are administrative and do not encroach on state powers

• Operative Order: Pending determination by the bench

• Practical Outcome: Pending; the petition seeks quashing of the regulations, a stay on the May 2023 directive, and transfer of licensing databases to state officers

How Does This Affect You?

Until now, the coexistence of central licences and state inspections created a gray area regarding which authority could enforce compliance. The court’s forthcoming decision will clarify whether the central regulator may lawfully issue directives that limit state‑level inspections of centrally licensed entities. This clarification will either reaffirm the autonomy of state food safety officers or expand the central body’s reach, thereby reshaping compliance strategies for food‑related enterprises.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Review all client licences to determine whether they are issued under the central framework or the state system, and advise on jurisdictional exposure accordingly.

• Amend engagement letters to include a clause specifying which authority’s inspection regime will apply, referencing the relevant sections of the 2006 Act.

• Prepare interlocutory applications seeking a stay on the May 2023 directive for clients whose operations could be disrupted by a sudden shift in inspection authority.

• Draft pleadings that position the central regulations as exceeding the powers conferred by Sections 13 and 14, using the petition’s arguments as a template for future challenges.

• Update internal compliance checklists to flag any post‑May 2023 central orders that may affect state‑level enforcement, ensuring timely risk assessments.

For Law Students

This case illustrates the judiciary’s approach to testing the limits of delegated legislative power in a federal context. The core doctrinal focus is the separation of powers between central and state regulatory competencies under a single‑act framework.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Federalism and the division of legislative authority in India

• Delegated legislation and its constitutional boundaries

• Administrative law principles governing statutory interpretation

• The role of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act in procedural fairness

• Comparative analysis of central versus state regulatory schemes

Comparable cases include Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India (2020) and Delhi v. Central Pollution Control Board (2018). Contrasting those judgments with the present matter highlights how courts balance uniform national standards against state autonomy in regulatory enforcement.

For Businesses

• Food manufacturers with central licences must reassess their inspection schedules, as a ruling favoring the centre could limit state‑level audits and alter compliance timelines.

• Retail chains should verify that their internal audit policies reference the appropriate licensing authority to avoid duplicate inspections and associated costs.

• Companies planning to expand into new states need to factor in the possibility of divergent enforcement regimes when budgeting for compliance staffing.

• Board committees overseeing regulatory risk should commission a review of all food‑safety licences to determine exposure to either central or state enforcement actions.

Key Takeaways

• The court will determine whether the central regulator may lawfully issue directives that restrict state food safety officers from inspecting centrally licensed establishments.

• Lawyers must audit client licences, revise engagement terms, and be ready to file stays or challenges based on the pending judgment.

• Regulators will be constrained to act within the powers expressly granted by the 2006 Act, limiting unilateral creation of enforcement posts.

• Monitor the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s upcoming amendment proposal on licensing thresholds, as it may seek to address the same jurisdictional concerns.

• In‑house counsel should complete a jurisdictional risk assessment of all food‑safety licences before the court’s decision is announced.

Source: Maharashtra moves Bombay High Court against FSSAI; says it usurped State's powers