Nestle India Limited v. Food Safety And Standards Authority Of India & Others (2015)

Introduction

This case arose when Nestlé’s iconic Maggi noodles faced a nationwide ban following allegations of excess lead and misleading labeling. The Bombay High Court was tasked with examining whether the ban imposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Maharashtra’s Commissioner of Food Safety was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and based on unreliable testing standards.

Facts

• Company Background: Nestle India is registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
• The Trigger: In January 2015, a Food Inspector from Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh, became suspicious about Maggi Noodles’ packaging, which claimed “No added MSG” (Monosodium Glutamate).
• Testing Process: Samples of Maggi were tested in Gorakhpur and Kolkata laboratories. The tests allegedly found excessive lead and MSG, violating permissible limits under food safety regulations.
• Government Action: Based on these findings, the government banned the sale of Maggi Noodles across India, citing public health concerns.

Arguments by Petitioners (Nestle)

1. Violation of Natural Justice:

• No show-cause notice was issued before the ban.
• Authorities provided no basis for passing the order to stop Maggi’s sale.

2. Unauthorised Testing:

• The laboratories used for testing were not accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), violating Section 43 of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006.
• When tested in Nestle’s own laboratory, lead levels were within permissible limits.

3. Constitutional Violations:

• Ban violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Freedom of Trade).

Issues and Court’s Replies

1. Was the writ maintainable?

• Answer: Yes, as it raised constitutional questions and procedural lapses.

2. Was there suppression of facts or destruction of evidence by Nestle?

• Answer: No, there was no evidence of suppression or tampering.

3. Were lead levels in Maggi below the maximum permissible limit?

• Answer: No, tests showed that lead levels exceeded permissible limits in some cases.

4. Was there a violation of the principle of natural justice?

• Answer: Yes, the ban was imposed without following due process.

5. What was the source of the government’s power to impose the ban?

• Answer: The government invoked Sections 30 and 34 of the FSSA, 2006, to justify the ban.

6. Did the court rely on reports from Nestle’s laboratory?

• Answer: No, the court focused on independent testing.

7. Can a food analyst test samples in laboratories not accredited by NABL?

• Answer: No, testing in unauthorised laboratories is invalid.

8. Was the ban a violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?

• Answer: Yes, the ban was deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Decision

High Court Ruling:

• The Bombay High Court set aside the government’s ban order, stating it violated principles of natural justice and was based on unreliable testing.
• Nestle was allowed to resume Maggi’s production and sale after passing laboratory tests.

Supreme Court’s Position:

• The ban was challenged in the Supreme Court, but the Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision and chose not to interfere.

Aftermath:

• Maggi passed new laboratory tests and returned to the market, restoring its position as a beloved instant noodle brand in India.