Maggi saga: Twelve questions that tore through FSSAI's defence

The questions that Bombay HC raised, which gave a lifeline to Nestle's battered noodle brand

In many respects, the Nestle-FSSAI saga is a test case for regulator-company relations in India. The Maggi ban and ensuing courtroom drama is a study in itself. When pronouncing the verdict yesterday, Justice VM Kanade of the Bombay High Court raised twelve questions, which were nothing but the points of contention in the dispute pertaining to the recall and ban of Maggi. Here is a list of the questions that tore through the defence of the FSSAI and the Maharashtra FDA.

• Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner - company (that is, Nestle India) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not?
• Whether there was suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner - company and whether it had made an attempt to destroy evidence disentitling it from claiming any relief from this court?
• Whether respondent No. 2 (CEO of FSSAI) could impose a ban on the ground that the lead found in the product of the petitioner was beyond what the latter had represented in its application for product approval, though it was below the maximum permissible limit laid down under the regulations?
• Whether the food authority (FSSAI) had unfettered discretion to decide what are the standards which have to be maintained by manufacturers of proprietary foods and whether in respect of the proprietary food (that is, Maggi noodles), the food authority was not bound by the permissible limits of additives and contaminants mentioned in the regulations and the schedules appended thereto?
• Whether in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, there was a complete ban on the manufacture of sale and products mentioned in the said section? (In other words, is a complete ban allowed under Section 22 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006)
• Whether there was violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents (in this case, CEO of FSSAI, State Food Commissioner of Maharashtra and Maharashtra State)?
• What was the source of power under the which the ban and recall of Maggi was passed?
• Whether the analysis of the product manufactured by the petitioner could have been made in the laboratories in which the said product was tested by the Food Authority and whether these laboratories are accredited by NABL and whether the reports submitted by these laboratories can be relied upon?
• Whether reliance can be placed on the reports obtained by the petitioner from its laboratory and other accredited laboratories?
• Whether the food analyst was entitled to test the samples in any laboratory, even if it was not accredited and recognised by the food authority (that is, FSSAI)?
• Whether it was established by the food authority that the lead beyond permissible lead was found in the product of the petitioner and the product of the petitioner was misbranded on account of the declaration made by the petitioner that the product contained "No added MSG"?
• Whether the respondents were justified in imposing a ban on all the nine variants of the petitioner though tests were conducted only in respect of three variants and whether such ban orders are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India?