Food safety guidelines dispute: Indian statutory prohibitions prevail over CODEX permissions, with further affidavits directed on laboratory status and eligibility

The Delhi HC did not finally determine the challenge to the guidelines, the quo warranto prayer, or the request concerning the Ghaziabad laboratory. It noted that the relief sought regarding closure of the laboratory had become unnecessary because the administration had been transferred, the laboratory was stated to remain operational, and an upgrade was proposed. The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits identifying authorised private laboratories for food testing, laboratories competent to test imported food articles, and the relevant notifications, and to disclose their stand on the Chairperson's eligibility under Section 5 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It also clarified that what Indian law prohibits cannot be validated merely because CODEX Alimentarius permits it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prayers seeking quo warranto, quashing of guidelines, and relief concerning the laboratory at Ghaziabad survived for adjudication; and whether the respondents were required to place on record the factual and statutory basis regarding authorised laboratories and the eligibility of the Chairperson under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Analysis: The relief relating to closure of the Ghaziabad laboratory did not survive as the administration had only been transferred and the laboratory was stated to remain operational and to be upgraded. The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits identifying authorised private laboratories for testing food samples and laboratories competent to test imported food articles, along with the relevant notifications. On the issue of the challenged guidelines, the Court clarified that what is prohibited under Indian law remains prohibited even if permitted under CODEX Alimentarius, while leaving open the factual question whether the particular additive was permitted under the applicable Indian law. On the quo warranto aspect, the Court directed the respondents to disclose their stand on the eligibility of the Chairperson in light of Section 5 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Conclusion: The order did not finally decide the substantive validity of the guidelines or the eligibility challenge, and instead called for further affidavits and responses.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding remained pending for further consideration after calling for additional affidavits on the surviving questions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rule or guideline permits a substance under CODEX Alimentarius but the applicable Indian statutory framework prohibits it, the Indian law prevails.

---