Summary: Heightened food-safety enforcement is bringing renewed attention to the personal exposure of directors and senior management. A series of High Court decisions in 2026 illustrates the boundaries of liability under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The emerging position rejects both extremes: directorship alone does not establish criminal liability, while the appointment of a nominated food-safety officer does not necessarily insulate directors where the alleged contravention is attributable to their consent, connivance, or neglect. For boards, the significance increasingly lies in how responsibility is allocated, how significant food-safety concerns are escalated and how senior management eventually responds to these concerns.
Food-safety enforcement in India has become increasingly visible in 2026. In Maharashtra alone, the Food and Drug Administration reportedly inspected more than 3,000 food establishments between May 25 and July 31, 2026, alongside improvement notices, licence suspensions, and other enforcement action.
For companies, the immediate consequences of an inspection may be operational, such as remediation, product withdrawal, licence continuity, or reputational impact. There is, however, a separate governance question. When can an alleged food-safety contravention travel upwards from the establishment or operating team to individual directors and senior management?
Recent High Court decisions under Section 66 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSS Act”), are beginning to provide useful answers.
Directorship does not, by itself, establish liability
Section 66 is the principal mechanism through which an offence committed by a company may result in liability for individuals connected with its business.
Under Section 66(1), where a company commits an offence, liability extends to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business, while preserving a defence based on absence of knowledge or exercise of due diligence. The provision separately addresses companies operating through different establishments, branches, or units and the person nominated as responsible for food safety at the relevant establishment, branch, or unit.
Under Section 66(2), which operates separately, where a company offence is proved to have occurred with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to neglect by a director, manager, secretary or other officer, liability also extends to that individual.
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Rajendra Ambalal Shah v. State of Maharashtra illustrates an important threshold.
The proceedings concerned, among others, directors of Godfrey Phillips India Limited. The Court found that the complaint did not go beyond identifying the applicants as directors to explain how they were responsible for the company’s day-to-day affairs. In quashing the proceedings against them, the Court emphasised that there is no universal rule that every director is necessarily in charge of a company’s everyday affairs. The Court also identified a separate defect concerning the laboratory report underlying the prosecution.
The decision is therefore significant not because directors have immunity from prosecution, but in the principle that corporate designation cannot substitute for the statutory basis on which individual responsibility is alleged.
A food-safety nominee is not an absolute shield
The converse proposition emerged in S.D. Mevada v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
The prosecution involved allegedly unsafe milk and included both a nominated quality-control officer and the company’s Managing Director in charge. The Managing Director relied on the nomination of another officer responsible for food safety to challenge his prosecution. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court rejected the proposition that such nomination conferred absolute immunity. Given the allegation that the Managing Director was overall in charge of the company’s affairs, questions on his knowledge, due diligence, and the applicability of Section 66 could not, in the Court’s view, be conclusively determined at the quashing stage and required evidence at trial.
That distinction matters for companies operating through multiple plants, warehouses, restaurants, or other establishments. While nomination under the statutory framework performs an important compliance function, it should not be treated as a mechanism that necessarily transfers every category of potential exposure away from management.
The nature of the alleged contravention may matter
The Madras High Court’s decision in Ali Hemati v. Food Safety Officer adds another dimension.
The petitioners, directors of Paradise Food Court Private Limited, contended that the appointment of a nominated person for the relevant establishment meant that prosecution should lie against that nominee rather than the directors.
The Court first held that the successive quashing petition was not maintainable, considering an earlier quashing petition had already been dismissed and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere. It nevertheless considered the Section 66 argument in the alternative. Rejecting the proposition that nomination necessarily confines prosecution to the nominated person, the Court held that Section 66(2) permits the prosecution of directors or other officers where the alleged act is attributable to them, notwithstanding the nomination framework under Section 66(1). The underlying prosecution involved allegations that artificial colourants had been added to food prepared by the company.
The decision therefore highlights a potentially important distinction. An establishment-level operational lapse and an alleged practice attributable to corporate decision-makers may not raise the same Section 66 questions. The inquiry ultimately turns not simply on who has been nominated, but on the conduct alleged and the basis on which it is attributed to the individual concerned.
Derivative liability still begins with the company
The Calcutta High Court identified a further boundary in Partha Sarathi Tripathy v. State of West Bengal.
The petitioner was prosecuted as the manager/person in charge of the manufacturer’s operations, but the manufacturing company itself had not been arrayed as an accused. In considering prosecution under Section 59 read with Section 66, the Court treated commission of the offence by the company as foundational to derivative liability under Section 66.
Drawing on the principles governing corporate criminal liability, the Court held that prosecution of the manager could not be sustained where the company itself had not been arraigned. It quashed the proceedings on that basis and on other procedural grounds concerning the analysis of the sample and statutory authorisation.
For enforcement agencies, this decision underscores the importance of correctly structuring a prosecution. For directors and officers, it reinforces that Section 66 liability is not a free-standing offence arising merely from status within the organisation.
Food safety is increasingly a governance issue
Taken together, these decisions do not create a single rule that determines when a director will be liable. Instead, they identify the questions that are likely to matter.
A non-executive or other director against whom no material allegation of responsibility is made stands differently from an executive exercising control over the relevant business. A valid nomination may be important where the contravention concerns a particular establishment or unit, but may not answer an allegation based on consent, connivance, or neglect at a higher level. Equally, any attempt to impose derivative liability must still satisfy the statutory architecture of Section 66.
For boards, the practical significance arises before any prosecution is filed.
Where serious food-safety concerns, repeated audit findings, contamination risks, regulator notices, systemic storage failures, or recurring product complaints are escalated to senior management or the board, the organisation’s response can become important. Clear allocation of responsibility, documented escalation protocols, timely investigation and remediation, and records showing how material risks were considered can help establish who exercised control, what was known, and what steps were taken.
The 2026 decisions therefore provide protection against indiscriminate prosecution based on designation alone. But they also underline the limits of treating food safety as an issue that can simply be delegated down the organisation.
As enforcement becomes more intensive, food-safety governance may increasingly be tested not only by what happened at the establishment, but also by what the company and those responsible for it did once the risk became known.
Recent Comments