Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered an order upholding the Food Safety and Standards regulatory framework and directing the Central government to prepare distinct guidance or regulations that classify restaurant enterprises into small, medium and large categories to safeguard hygiene and public health across all types of food service outlets. The court observed that the current Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses Regulations, 2011 primarily differentiate establishments by annual turnover—an economic measure alone—and called for a more specific, capacity-and activity-based segmentation to align standards with on-ground realities. The petition challenging licensing, sanitary and labelling requirements was dismissed, and authorities were instructed to adopt the directed categorisation and related health-safety measures.

The petition was filed by Karnataka Pradesh Hotel & Restaurants Association and Bruhat Bengaluru Hotels Association challenging a letter dated 13-03-2012 issued by the Food Safety Commissioner directing all States to implement the Food Safety and Standards Rules and Regulations and mandating every food business operator to obtain a licence or registration to carry on business. The petitioners also sought declarations that several provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the 2011 Regulations—covering licensing, registration, packaging, labelling, food product standards, and penalties under Sections 50–65—were unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable and unenforceable.

Also Read: SC Issues Notice on PIL Challenging Rajasthan’s 2025 Anti-Conversion Law; Petition Alleges Unconstitutional Powers of Demolition and Property Confiscation

The petitioners described themselves as long-standing associations representing hotels and restaurants in Karnataka, stating that the hospitality sector had historically complied with the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. They traced the regulatory transition from the 1954 Act to the 2006 Act and contended that the new regime imposed impractical and onerous obligations on establishments differing widely in size, scale and operational capacity.

Their objections included the mandatory licensing requirement, alleged ambiguities in standards, onerous compliance burdens for small and medium operators, and severe penal consequences. They also asserted that several regulatory provisions lacked clarity, used undefined terms, and conferred excessive power on authorities. They claimed the framework violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

The respondents argued that the Act was a consolidating statute aimed at ensuring safe and wholesome food and was supported by scientific standards, international practices, and clear statutory mechanisms including adjudication and appeal. They asserted that penal provisions and licensing structures were essential and constitutionally valid, and that the presumption of constitutionality must prevail.

The Court opened by recording the nature of the petition and the immediate relief sought by the petitioners: “The petitioners… are at the doors of this Court, calling in question a letter dated 13-03-2012, directing all states to implement the rules and regulations… thereby mandating every food business operator to either get a license or registration to carry on their business.”

The Court noted the petitioners’ core contentions — that the Regulations were impracticable, discriminatory and premised chiefly on economic thresholds — and recorded their submissions that the new regime “treat[ed] diverse establishments largely on an economic scale (turnover).” In assessing legal validity, the Court observed the statutory framework’s reliance on scientific and international standards and stated that “the measures adopted shall be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve appropriate level of health protection.” It recorded that the Act and Regulations provide mechanisms for scientific evaluation, transparent consultation and enforcement, factors that favour retaining the statutory scheme.

Addressing the petitioners’ technical challenges, the Court recorded that the petitioners had not demonstrated that the authorities had “restricted the use of any food item in its natural form which is unadulterated not injurious to health.” The Court accepted that practical difficulties and administrative burdens were real concerns for small operators but concluded that such implementation issues did not, without more, render the statutory scheme unconstitutional.

The Court observed: “It is a cultural truth that the street food in India is a cherished norm. Therefore, from humble roadside stalls, to the modern food trucks or uber restaurants, the spirit of Indian cuisine thrives. However, the Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses Regulations, 2011 draw their lines of demarcation upon annual turnover, distinguishing the petty business from the large restaurant, merely one economic scales.”

While rejecting the constitutional challenge, the Court indicated administrative remedies: “the challenge to the Act and the Regulations fails and the petition stands disposed of upholding the constitutionality of the Act and the Regulations.” The Court recorded a specific course for the executive to address proportionality and classification and stated that the regulatory authority should consider “rationalization of penalties; classification of establishments based on scale and capacity.” 

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Directs Reconsideration With Possible Age Relaxation In Compassionate Appointment of Widow

The Court directed: "The challenge to the Act and the Regulations fails and the petition stands disposed of upholding the constitutionality of the Act and the Regulations."

"Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/Union of India to tripartite the guidelines of all nuances under the Regulations into small, medium and large restaurants qua the implementation of the Regulations, owing to the necessity of health standards and apprehension of health hazards by bringing in appropriate Regulations or guidelines."

"The State shall also bring in Health and Safety Standard Regulations for all street vendors, food trucks and create a mechanism for vigil over its strict implementation. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate; Sri Vivek Holla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri Anuj Udupa, Advocate for Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, DSGI; Sri Spoorthy Hegde, HCGP; Sri Dore Raj, Advocate.

Case Title: Karnataka Pradesh Hotel & Restaurants Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 25756 of 2012.
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna.