Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Support our Journalism

9th Anniversary: Free Tote & Mug

Maharashtra FDA is judge, jury and executioner. Who watches the food safety watchdog?

Since Tukaram Mundhe took charge, we have identified at least 16 disputes over FDA action that have produced reasoned orders in the HC. All have gone against the department.

Tukaram Mundhe has brought Maharashtra’s Food and Drug Administration the sense of urgency it badly needed. Every restaurant now takes inspection seriously. The Bombay High Court, meanwhile, has spent much of the summer appearing to clip the Maharashtra FDA chief’s wings.

Since Mundhe took charge, we have identified at least sixteen disputes over FDA action that have produced reasoned orders in the High Court. All sixteen have gone against the department. It is tempting to see this as the court poking its nose into administration. We think the court has no other option.

The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, bakes a serious weakness into the FDA’s institutional legitimacy: a business challenging a licence suspension is forced to appeal before the Commissioner who heads the department (here, Mundhe) that imposed it. In effect, the law rolls judge, jury and executioner all into one role. That cuts against the spirit of the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle: final review of the exercise of public power should not lie with the same authority that wields the stick. As things stand, the High Court’s interference is the only independent check against unjust exercise of power.

Also Read: Stalking judges’ assets helps nobody. We must rethink how we audit our judges

At a press conference in August, Tukaram Mundhe said that 103 of the 165 establishments whose licences had been suspended since he took charge had appealed. “Every Tuesday I conduct hearings,” he said. He does this under Section 32 of the FSSA, which deals with the suspension or cancellation of licences. Under subsection 4, appeals go to the Commissioner of Food Safety, whose decision the law says shall be “final”.

Think of a parallel in tax collection. Imagine the tax department raises a demand on Rs 25 lakh of “unexplained” income. You appeal. The same department reconsiders its own finding and, after scrupulous review, agrees with itself. Imagine further........

© ThePrint