The Supreme Court of India on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought the creation of a national task force to oversee food safety enforcement across the country. A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the petition lacked merit and declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The primary legal question before the Court was whether a judicial intervention was necessary to establish an additional monitoring body—a national task force—to ensure compliance with food safety standards. The petitioner also sought a court-mandated, time-bound nationwide audit of food manufacturing units and commercial establishments. The Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, stating there were no grounds to entertain the plea.
The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by an individual appearing in person. The plea highlighted concerns regarding contaminated and hazardous food, arguing that the issue affects nearly every citizen in the country.
The petitioner sought several broad directions, including:
- The constitution of a National Task Force under Supreme Court supervision.
- A nationwide, time-bound audit and inspection drive of restaurants, food processing units, and commercial establishments.
- The strengthening of testing laboratories and inspection infrastructure across all States and Union Territories.
- The establishment of a grievance redressal and compensation mechanism for victims of food safety violations.
The Union of India, all State governments, Union Territories, and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) were named as respondents in the matter.
During the proceedings, the bench expressed skepticism regarding the depth of the petitioner’s preparation. In an earlier hearing on April 6, the Court had questioned the petitioner on his research, asking, “Other than sermons, what research have you done before filing this PIL?”
The petitioner maintained that the plea was essential because it addressed the systemic presence of unsafe food. However, the bench found the arguments insufficient to warrant the extraordinary measures requested.
In its final order, the bench concluded that the petition failed to meet the threshold required for the Court to intervene in policy and enforcement matters under Article 32.
“We find no ground to entertain this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as being devoid of merits,” the bench held.
