From Shelf to Courtroom: Food Safety, Product Recalls and Corporate Responsibility

By – Kamatham Rishitha and Riya Parihar

Table of Contents

Introduction

A food safety concern can emerge long after a product has left the manufacturing facility. A laboratory report may identify contamination in a particular batch, a distributor may report an unusual defect, or a series of consumer complaints may point to a common problem. At that stage, the business faces a decision that extends well beyond quality control, whether to investigate, how quickly to act, which products may be affected, and when regulatory intervention becomes necessary.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSS Act”), read with the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017, establishes the framework for addressing unsafe and non-compliant food. A recall, however, is more than a regulatory obligation. It tests a business’s traceability systems, internal decision-making and ability to protect consumers while meeting its legal responsibilities. Ultimately, corporate accountability is reflected not only in the measures taken to prevent a safety failure, but also in the response when one comes to light.

The Statutory Framework: Responsibility, Enforcement and Accountability

The legal framework governing food product recalls in India is primarily set out under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read with the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017. Section 28 of the FSS Act is central to this framework, as it addresses the obligations of food business operators (“FBOs”) where they have reason to believe that food they have placed on the market does not comply with the applicable food safety requirements. It requires appropriate steps to be taken to withdraw the affected food and notify the competent authorities in accordance with the statutory requirements.

The 2017 Regulations supplement this framework by prescribing a structured process for initiating and managing recalls. The 2017 Regulations supplement this framework by prescribing a structured process for initiating and managing recalls. Regulation 7requires specified food business operators, including manufacturers, importers and wholesale suppliers, to maintain an up-to-date food recall plan and sets out requirements for its implementation and reporting. Regulation 8 addresses recall communication, requiring the operator initiating a recall to promptly inform other food business operators in the supply chain and consumers. These requirements are complemented by Regulation 6, which governs the maintenance of food distribution records, including supplier and customer details, batch numbers and relevant product information. 

Read together, Section 28 of the FSS Act and the 2017 Regulations establish that a food recall is not merely a public announcement or a one-time withdrawal of products. It is a continuing compliance obligation involving prompt reporting, product traceability, coordinated communication, effective removal from the supply chain, appropriate disposal and documented corrective action. 

Identification to Recall: The Process Explained from Identification to Recall

A food recall involves more than simply removing a product from the shelves; it requires a coordinated effort to protect consumers and ensure compliance with food safety laws. The FSSAI Guidelines for Food Recall, issued on 28 November 2017, read alongside the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017, provide practical guidance to FBOs on developing and implementing recall plans. These Guidelines supplement, but do not replace, the binding statutory and regulatory requirements.

The guidelines outline the following steps for conducting a recall:

1. Assemble a recall management team and assign responsibilities for decision-making, quality assurance, legal advice and communication.
2. Notify the competent authority, providing details of the affected product, the nature of the problem and its distribution.
3. Identify the products to be recalled using batch numbers, manufacturing records and distribution details.
4. Detain and segregate affected products to prevent further distribution of stock under the business’s control.
5. Inform distributors, retailers and consumers through appropriate recall notices, explaining the reason for the recall and the action required.
6. Prepare a distribution list identifying the businesses and outlets that received the affected products.
7. Monitor the effectiveness of the recall and submit periodic status reports to the competent authority.
8. Maintain records of recovered products and ensure they do not re-enter the market.
9. Determine whether the recalled products should be corrected, reprocessed where permitted, or destroyed, in accordance with regulatory requirements.
10. Investigate the cause of the recall and implement corrective measures to prevent recurrence.

The process extends beyond product withdrawal to recovery, reporting and corrective action. Under Section 28 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with the 2017 Regulations, FBOs must take appropriate action when food placed on the market does not comply with applicable food safety requirements. 

The Judiciary’s Role in Food Recall and Safety

Food recalls in India have increasingly brought into focus the role of the judiciary in balancing public health protection with the statutory obligations of food business operators and the powers of food safety authorities. Judicial decisions have consistently examined the circumstances in which such measures may be imposed and the safeguards that must accompany regulatory action.

In K.K.R. Food Products v. M/s. T.V. Anupama, the Kerala High Court examined the scope of Sections 26 and 28 of the Act after the Commissioner of Food Safety prohibited the manufacture and sale of Nirapara-brand spice powders found to contain added starch. The Court held that withdrawal under Section 26 or recall under Section 28 would arise only where the food was unsafe for human consumption. This decision raises an important question concerning the distinction between food that fails to meet prescribed standards and food that poses a risk to human health.

The mandatory nature of the obligations imposed under Section 28 of the Act, read with the Food Recall Procedure Regulations, 2017, is further underscored by A.R. Dairy Food Private Limited v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The case concerned ghee consignments rejected by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), which were subsequently resold to another dairy without the competent authorities being informed of the rejection. The Court treated this failure to report the rejection and the subsequent resale as inconsistent with the statutory recall framework. The decision highlights that a food business operator cannot treat the rejection of a product as a mere commercial matter; where the statutory conditions for recall are attracted, the obligations to withdraw non-compliant food and inform the competent authorities must be taken seriously. 

However, the responsibility imposed on food business operators must be considered alongside the statutory limits on regulatory enforcement. The importance of procedural safeguards in recall-related regulatory action was further highlighted in Nestlé India Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, arising from the Maggi noodles controversy. The Court set aside the impugned orders on grounds including procedural unfairness and deficiencies in sampling and testing, and directed further testing before manufacture and sale could resume. The judgment underscores that, although public health protection is paramount, regulatory action must be supported by a proper statutory basis, reliable evidence and compliance with procedural fairness. It therefore illustrates the need to balance consumer safety with the lawful exercise of regulatory powers.

How Consumer Protection Act, 2019 compliments the FSS Act 

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”) adds a complementary layer of protection. The FSS Act is the specialised legislation governing food safety, standards and food business responsibilities. The CPA addresses consumer rights and provides mechanisms for action against unsafe goods, unfair trade practices and harm caused by defective products. The two statutes have different purposes and powers, but they may operate in relation to the same product or incident where their respective requirements are met. Section 20 of the CPA empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”), where the statutory conditions are satisfied and its investigation provides sufficient evidence of a violation of consumer rights or an unfair trade practice, to order measures that include recalling dangerous, hazardous or unsafe goods, reimbursing the price of goods so recalled, discontinuing practices harmful to consumers and issuing corrective directions. This is an express consumer-protection recall power. It is distinct from the FBO’s obligations under Section 28 of the FSS Act and the recall procedures administered within the food-safety framework.

The CPA may also provide remedies to individual consumers. Section 39 empowers Consumer Commissions to grant relief in a complaint, which may include removal of a defect, replacement, refund and compensation, depending on the claim and applicable conditions. Chapter VI establishes the product-liability framework for claims for harm caused by a defective product, addressing the potential liability of manufacturers, product service providers and product sellers, subject to the requirements and exceptions in those provisions. Section 2(10) defines ‘defect’ in goods, while Section 2(34) defines ‘product liability’. A product-liability claim is not automatic merely because a product has been recalled; the claimant must establish the elements required by the applicable provisions. The practical relationship can be understood in three ways:

1. Food-safety authorities may require action to protect public health under the FSS Act, while the CCPA may exercise its powers under Section 20 where the CPA’s conditions are met. 
2. A recall may help prevent further exposure but may not resolve a consumer’s separate claim for a refund, compensation or product-liability relief. 
3. The same facts may raise issues under both statutes, but the powers and legal tests should not be conflated. 

Businesses should therefore coordinate regulatory communications and consumer-facing measures while assessing each obligation under the statute that governs it. The existence of parallel statutory mechanisms does not mean that every case will engage both. Whether a particular authority can take a particular step depends on the statutory trigger, the evidence, the nature of the goods and the relief sought. The key point is that recall and consumer redress can be complementary: one is directed towards removing or addressing a product risk, while the other may also address consumer rights and harm already suffered.

Conclusion: accountability begins before a case reaches court

The legal significance of a food recall lies in what it reveals about the relationship between a business and the people who consume its products. A product may reach the market through a sophisticated distribution network, but responsibility for its safety cannot be reduced to a series of disconnected contractual arrangements. The FSS Act and the Food Recall Procedure Regulations establish obligations that extend from prevention and detection to withdrawal, notification and follow-up. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 may provide additional recall powers and consumer remedies where its requirements are satisfied. Judicial decisions, including the Maggi litigation, also demonstrate that accountability must operate within a framework of statutory authority, reliable evidence and procedural fairness.

For businesses, the most consequential moment may come before a regulator issues a notice or a consumer initiates proceedings: the moment when the first credible indication of a safety problem reaches management. A well-managed recall cannot erase a violation or guarantee immunity from liability. It can, however, prevent further exposure, support a transparent investigation and demonstrate that the business has taken its responsibilities seriously. A poorly managed recall can compound the original problem through delay, uncertainty and inadequate communication. Ultimately, effective recall management is not measured by the speed with which a company issues a statement or the number of products it removes from shelves. It is measured by whether the business identifies the problem, acts lawfully, reaches affected consumers, accounts for recalled products and addresses the underlying cause. That is what turns food safety from a policy on paper into a meaningful system of corporate responsibility.

FAQs

References –

1. Section 28 , the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
2. Regulation 7, the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017
3. Regulation 8, the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017
4. Regulation 6, the Food Safety and Standards (Food Recall Procedure) Regulations, 2017
5. Guidelines for Food Recall , 28 November 2017 https://fssai.gov.in/docs/food-law/regulations/Guidelines_Food_Recall_28_11_2017.pdf
6. K.K.R. Food Products v. M/s. T.V. Anupama ,2015 SCC OnLine Ker 23176
7. A.R. Dairy Food Private Limited v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 26112
8. Nestlé India Ltd. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India ,2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4713
9. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
10. Section 20, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
11. Section 28, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
12. Section 39, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
13. Section 2(10), the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
14. Section 2(34), the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

More from Neeti Niyaman Team –