W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 1 of 45

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2026.

% Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2026.

+ W.P.(C) 1079/2025 & CM APPL. 5331/2025

GODREJ AGROVET LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Madhavi Divan, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Ms.

Sonam Anand, Mr. Ashwin Joseph &

Mr. Atharva Kotwal, Advocates.

Versus

FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

& ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Advocate for

R-1.

Mr. Jivesh Kumar Tiwari & Ms.

Samiksha, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. Proceedings of this petition instituted under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India question the validity of Note (c) appended to

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 2 of 45

Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards

and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Principal Regulations”), which has been substituted by the Food Safety and

Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Fifth Amendment

Regulations, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amending Regulations”).

2. By the impugned Note (c) it has been mandated that all the products

listed in Regulation 2.5.2 shall comply with the requirements as given in

Note (c), according to which, milk and meat producing animals excluding

poultry, pig and fish shall not be fed with feed containing meat or bone meal

including internal organs, blood meal and tissue of bovine or porcine origin

materials except milk and milk products. It also mandates that commercial

feeds shall comply with BIS („Bureau of Indian Standards‟) standards as

may be specified by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Food

Authority) established under Section 4 of the Food Safety and Standards

Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2006”).

3. The said amendment in Regulation 2.5.2 was introduced by Section

2(5) of the Amending Regulation, which is extracted here under:-

―(5) for the note given under sub-regulation 2.5.2 related to

Meat and Meat Products,

(a) the sentence ‗All the products listed in regulation 2.5.2 under

clause 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 shall comply with following

requirements:‘ shall be substituted with the following namely:

―All the products listed in regulation 2.5.2 shall comply with

following requirements:‖

(b) note (c) shall be substituted with the following namely:

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 3 of 45

―(c) Milk and meat producing animals except poultry, pig

and fish shall not be fed with feed containing meat or bone

meal including internal organs, blood meal and tissues of

bovine or porcine origin materials except milk and milk

products. Commercial feeds shall comply with the relevant

BIS standards, as may be specified by the Food Authority

from time to time, and carry BIS certification mark on the

label of the product.‖

4. Note (c) which existed prior to its amendment is quoted here under:-

―Note: All the products listed in regulation 2.5.2 under clause 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12 shall comply with following requirements:

(a) Notifications or advisories issued under the Drugs and

Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as well as by the Department of Animal

Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries concerning use in or

consumption of veterinary drugs (antibiotics and growth promoters)

by food producing animals or poultry birds must be complied with

by the producers or marketers of meat and poultry products.

(b) Use of genetically modified techniques are prohibited for

production of meat of animals or poultry birds.

(c) Meat producing animals except poultry shall not be fed with feed

containing meat or bone meal including internal organs, blood meal

and tissues of bovine or porcine origin materials except milk and

milk products.

(d) Production or slaughtering or processing of animals for

production of meat of porcine origin in the same production

facilities where animals of bovine or ovine or caprine origin are

produced or slaughtered or processed is prohibited.

(e) Where eligible meat products are intended to be imported, there

should be appropriate inspection and certification procedures in

place to ensure all the above compliances before grant of market

access.‖

5. Thus, prior to its amendment, requirements given in Note (c) applied

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 4 of 45

to products listed in Regulation 2.5.2 under clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12,

whereas the amended clause (c) now applies to all the products listed in

Regulation 2.5.2. As per the Regulation 2 of the Amending Regulations, the

amendment has come into force on the date of its publication in the official

gazette and food business operators have been mandated to comply with all

the provisions of the Amending Regulations by 01.06.2022.

6. The petitioner which is a company incorporated under the relevant

provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai

and is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of animal feed, cattle feed,

poultry feed etc., and other agricultural inputs, has also challenged by way

of filing the instant writ petition, the direction dated 10.12.2019 issued by

the Food Authority under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2006, whereby it was

directed that commercial feeds/feed materials intended for food producing

animals shall comply with the relevant BIS standards and shall not be

manufactured, imported, distributed or sold except under the Bureau of

Indian Standards Certification Mark. The impugned direction dated

10.12.2019 was to come into force after six months from the date of issue of

the said direction.

7. The petitioner has also challenged the direction dated 27.01.2020

issued under Section 16(5) of the Act, 2006 whereby the direction issued

earlier was superseded, however, it was decided that commercial feeds

intended for cattle shall comply with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)

specification for compounded feeds for cattle and that on the date of

enforcement of the direction dated 27.01.2020, such feeds for cattle shall

carry a BIS certification mark on the label of the products. The direction

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 5 of 45

dated 27.01.2020 also provided that the said direction shall come into force

after six months from the date of issue i.e. 27.01.2020. Challenge has also

been made to another direction dated 01.01.2021 issued under Section 16(5)

of the Act, 2006 whereby the timeline for compliance of the provisions of

the earlier directions was extended further upto 01.07.2021.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

8. Before delving into the respective submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties in support and opposition of the prayers made in the

writ petition, it is essential to note certain statutory provisions, which are as

under:-

I. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SEVENTH SCHEDULE

List I–Union List:

―52. Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by

Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.‖

List II – State List

―15. Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of

animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.‖

[...]

―24. Industries subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 of List I.‖

Article 243G

―243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature of a State may,

by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority and may be

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 6 of 45

necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and

such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and

responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level, subject to such

conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to—

(a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice;

(b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social

justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters

listed in the Eleventh Schedule.‖

Eleventh Schedule

―1. **

2. **

3. **

4. Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry‖

II. FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006 :-

Long Title of the Act, 2006

―An Act to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food

Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based

standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage,

distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome

food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or

incidental thereto.‖

Section 2

―2. Declaration as to expediency of control by the Union. It is hereby

declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take

under its control the food industry.‖

Relevant extract of Section 3

3. Definitions. —(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, –

[...]

(j) ―food‖ means any substance, whether processed, partially processed

or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes

primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modified or

engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 7 of 45

drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including

water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment

but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared

or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants prior

to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or

psychotropic substances:

Provided that the Central Government may declare, by

notification in the Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes

of this Act having regards to its use, nature, substance or quality;‖

(q) ―food safety‖ means assurance that food is acceptable for human

consumption according to its intended use;‖

(zk) ―primary food‖ means an article of food, being a produce of

agriculture or horticulture or animal husbandry and dairying or

aquaculture in its natural form, resulting from the growing, raising,

cultivation, picking, harvesting, collection or catching in the hands of a

person other than a farmer or fisherman;

(zr) ―sale‖ with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions,

means the sale of any article of food, whether for cash or on credit or by

way of exchange and whether by whole sale or retail, for human

consumption or use, or for analysis, and includes an agreement for sale, an

offer for sale, the exposing for sale or having in possession for sale of any

such article, and includes also an attempt to sell any such article;‖

(zz) ―unsafe food‖ means an article of food whose name, substance or

quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health:—

(i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether

wholly or in part, of poisonous or deleterious substances; or

(ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, of any filthy, putrid, rotten,

decomposed or diseased animal substance or vegetable substance; or

(iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of

any harmful substance; or

(iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly

or in part; or

(v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which it not

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 8 of 45

permitted; or

(vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or

(vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or

polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or

of greater value than it really is;

or

(viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than

that specified in respect thereof; or

(ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils or

insects; or

(x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary

conditions; or

(xi) by virtue of its being misbranded or substandard or food containing

extraneous matter; or

(xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of

quantities specified by regulations.

Section 16

16. Duties and functions of Food Authority.—

(1) It shall be the duty of the Food Authority to regulate and monitor the

manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food so as to

ensure safe and wholesome food.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Food

Authority may by regulations specify—

(a) the standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food and specifying

an appropriate system for enforcing various standards notified under this

Act;

(b) the limits for use of food additives, crop contaminants, pesticide

residues, residues of veterinary drugs, heavy metals, processing aids, myco-

toxins, antibiotics and pharmacological active substances and irradiation of

food;

(c) the mechanisms and guidelines for accreditation of certification bodies

engaged in certification of food safety management systems for food

businesses;

(d) the procedure and the enforcement of quality control in relation to any

article of food imported into India;

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 9 of 45

(e) the procedure and guidelines for accreditation of laboratories and

notification of the accredited laboratories;

(f) the method of sampling, analysis and exchange of information among

enforcement authorities;

(g) conduct survey of enforcement and administration of this Act in the

country;

(h) food labelling standards including claims on health, nutrition, special

dietary uses and food category systems for foods; and

(i) the manner in which and the procedure subject to which risk analysis,

risk assessment, risk communication and risk management shall be

undertaken.

(3) The Food Authority shall also—

(a) provide scientific advice and technical support to the Central

Government and the State Governments in matters of framing the policy and

rules in areas which have a direct or indirect bearing on food safety and

nutrition;

(b) search, collect, collate, analyse and summarise relevant scientific and

technical data particularly relating to—

(i) food consumption and the exposure of individuals to risks related to the

consumption of food;

(ii) incidence and prevalence of biological risk;

(iii) contaminants in food;

(iv) residues of various contaminants;

(v) identification of emerging risks; and

(vi) introduction of rapid alert system;

(c) promote, co-ordinate and issue guidelines for the development of risk

assessment methodologies and monitor and conduct and forward messages

on the health and nutritional risks of food to the Central Government, State

Governments and Commissioners of Food Safety;

(d) provide scientific and technical advice and assistance to the Central

Government and the State Governments in implementation of crisis

management procedures with regard to food safety and to draw up a

general plan for crisis management and work in close co-operation with the

crisis unit set up by the Central Government in this regard;

(e) establish a system of network of organisations with the aim to facilitate a

scientific co-operation framework by the coordination of activities, the

exchange of information, the development and implementation of joint

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 10 of 45

projects, the exchange of expertise and best practices in the fields within the

Food Authority's responsibility;

(f) provide scientific and technical assistance to the Central Government

and the State Governments for improving cooperation with international

organisations;

(g) take all such steps to ensure that the public, consumers, interested

parties and all levels of panchayats receive rapid, reliable, objective and

comprehensive information through appropriate methods and means;

(h) provide, whether within or outside their area, training programmes in

food safety and standards for persons who are or intend to become involved

in food businesses, whether as food business operators or employees or

otherwise;

(i) undertake any other task assigned to it by the Central Government to

carry out the objects of this Act;

(j) contribute to the development of international technical standards for

food, sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards;

(k) contribute, where relevant and appropriate, to the development of

agreement on recognition of the equivalence of specific food related

measures;

(l) promote co-ordination of work on food standards undertaken by

international governmental and non-governmental organisations;

(m) promote consistency between international technical standards and

domestic food standards while ensuring that the level of protection adopted

in the country is not reduced; and

(n) promote general awareness as to food safety and food standards.

(4) The Food Authority shall make it public without undue delay—

(a) the opinions of the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panel

immediately after adoption;

(b) the annual declarations of interest made by members of the Food

Authority; the Chief Executive Officer, members of the Advisory Committee

and members of the Scientific Committee and Scientific Panel, as well as the

declarations of interest if any, made in relation to items on the agendas of

meetings;

(c) the results of its scientific studies; and

(d) the annual report of its activities.

(5) The Food Authority may, from time to time give such directions, on

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 11 of 45

matters relating to food safety and standards, to the Commissioner of Food

Safety, who shall be bound by such directions while exercising his powers

under this Act;

(6) The Food Authority shall not disclose or cause to be disclosed to third

parties confidential information that it receives for which confidential

treatment has been requested and has been acceded, except for information

which must be made public if circumstances so require, in order to protect

public health.

Section 92

92. Power of Food Authority to make regulations.—

(1) The Food Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central

Government and after previous publication, by notification, make

regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to carry

out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing

power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters,

namely:—

(a) salaries and other conditions of service of officers and other employees

of the Food Authority under sub-section (3) of Section 9;

(b) rules of procedure for transaction of business under subsection(5) of

Section 11;

(c) other functions of the Central Advisory Committee under subsection(2) of

Section 12;

(d) procedure of Scientific Committee and Panels under subsection(4) of

Section 15;

(e) notifying standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food meant

for human consumption under sub-section (2) of Section 16;

(f) procedure to be followed by Food Authority for transaction of business at

its meetings under sub-section (1) of Section 17;

(g) making or amending regulations in view of urgency concerning food

safety or public health under clause (d) of subsection(2) of Section 18.

(h) limits of additives under Section 19;

(i) limits of quantities of contaminants, toxic substance and heavy metals,

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 12 of 45

etc., under Section 20;

(j) tolerance limit of pesticides, veterinary drugs residues, etc., under

Section 21;

(k) the manner of marking and labelling of foods under Section 23;

(l) form in which guarantee shall be given under sub-section (4)of Section

26;

(m) conditions and guidelines relating to food recall procedures under sub-

section(4) of Section 28;

(n) regulations relating to functioning of Food Safety Officer under sub-

section (5) of Section 29;

(o) notifying the registering authority and the manner of registration; the

manner of making application for obtaining licence, the fees payable

therefore and the circumstances under which such licence may be cancelled

or forfeited under Section31;

(p) the respective areas of which the Designated Officer shall be in-charge

for food safety administration under sub-section (1)of Section 36;

(q) procedure in getting food analysed, details of fees, etc., under sub-

section (1) of Section 40;

(r) functions, procedure to be followed by food laboratories under sub-

section (3) of Section 43;

(s) procedure to be followed by officials under sub-section (6) of Section 47;

(t) financial regulations to be adopted by the Food Authority in drawing up

its budget under sub-section (2) of Section 81;

(u) issue guidelines or directions for participation in Codex Meetings and

preparation of response to Codex matters; and

(v) any other matter which is required to be, or may be, specified by

regulations or in respect of which provision is to be made by regulations.‖

Section 97

97. Repeal and savings.—

(1) With effect from such date as the Central Government may appoint in

this behalf, the enactment and orders specified in the Second Schedule shall

stand repealed:

Provided that such repeal shall not affect:—

(i) the previous operations of the enactment and orders under repeal or

anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(ii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 13 of 45

under any of the enactment or orders under repeal; or

(iii) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offences

committed against the enactment and orders under repeal; or

(iv) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or

punishment, and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may

be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or

punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed:

(2) If there is any other law for the time being in force in any State,

corresponding to this Act, the same shall upon the commencement of this

Act, stand repealed and in such case, the provisions of Section 6 of the

General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) shall apply as if such provisions of

the State law had been repealed.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the aforesaid enactment and orders, the

licences issued under any such enactment or order, which are in force on

the date of commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in force till the

date of their expiry for all purposes, as if they had been issued under the

provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being

in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act

or orders after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of the

commencement of this Act.

The Second Schedule

(see Section 97)

1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954)

2. The Fruit Products Order, 1955

3. The Meat Food Products Order, 1973

4. The Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947

5. The Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998

6. The Solvent Extracted Oil, De oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control)

Order, 1967

7. The Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992

8. Any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955(10 of

1955) relating to food.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 14 of 45

III. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF BUREAU OF INDIAN

STANDARDS ACT, 2016:-

2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

[...]

(17) ―Indian Standard‖ means the standard including any tentative or

provisional standard established and published by the Bureau, in relation

to any goods, article, process, system or service, indicative of the quality

and specification of such goods, article, process, system or service and

includes—

(i) any standard adopted by the Bureau under sub-section (2) of

section 10; and

(ii) any standard established and published, or recognised, by the

Bureau of Indian Standards established under the Bureau of

Indian Standard Act, 1986 (63 of 1986), which was in force

immediately before the commencement of this Act;

(20) ―licence‖ means a licence granted under section 13 to use a specified

Standard Mark in relation to any goods, article, process, system or service,

which conforms to a standard;‘

(40) ―Standard Mark‖ means the mark specified by the Bureau, and

includes Hallmark, to represent conformity of goods, article, process,

system or service to a particular Indian Standard or conformity to a

standard, the mark of which has been established, adopted or recognised by

the Bureau and is marked on the article or goods as a Standard Mark or on

its covering or label attached to such goods or article so marked;

―16. Central Government to direct compulsory use of Standard Mark.—

(1) If the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or

expedient so to do in the public interest or for the protection of human,

animal or plant health, safety of the environment, or prevention of unfair

trade practices, or national security, it may, after consulting the Bureau, by

an order published in the Official Gazette, notify—

(a) goods or article of any scheduled industry, process, system or service;

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 15 of 45

or

(b) essential requirements to which such goods, article, process, system or

service,

which shall conform to a standard and direct the use of the Standard

Mark under a licence or certificate of conformity as compulsory on such

goods, article, process, system or service.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section,—

(i) the expression ―scheduled industry‖ shall have the meaning

assigned to it in the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951

(65 of 1951);

(ii) it is hereby clarified that essential requirements are requirements,

expressed in terms of the parameters to be achieved or requirements of

standard in technical terms that effectively ensure that any goods,

article, process, system or service meet the objective of health, safety

and environment.

(2) The Central Government may, by an order authorise Bureau or any

other agency having necessary accreditation or recognition and valid

approval to certify and enforce conformity to the relevant standard or

prescribed essential requirements under sub-section (1).‖

25. Power of Central Government to issue directions.—(1) Without

prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Bureau shall, in the

exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act, be

bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government

may give in writing to it from time to time: Provided that the Bureau shall,

as far as practicable, be given an opportunity to express its views before

any direction is given under this sub-section.

(2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of

policy or not shall be final.

(3) The Central Government may take such other action as may be

necessary for the promotion, monitoring and management of quality of

goods, articles, processes, systems and services and to protect the interests

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 16 of 45

of consumers and various other stakeholders and notify any other goods,

articles, processes, systems and services for the purpose of sub-section (1)

of section 16.

IV. RELEVANT PROVISION OF BUREAU OF INDIAN

STANDARDS RULES, 2018:-

24. Indian Standards to be binding in certain cases.—(1) Save as

otherwise provided in sub-rule (2), the Indian Standards are voluntary and

their implementation depends on adoption by concerned parties.

(2) An Indian Standard shall be binding if it is stipulated in a contract or

referred to in a legislation or made mandatory by specific orders of the

Government.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior advocate representing the

petitioner in support of the writ petition, has advanced the following

arguments:-

* Impugned Regulation is beyond the scope of Act, 2006 and,

therefore, it is ultra vires the Act:-

10. It has been submitted by Ms.Divan that the impugned regulation has

been made in purported exercise of the powers conferred on the Food

Authority by Section 92(2)(e) read with Section 16 of the Act, 2006, which,

according to Ms.Divan, do not permit the Food Authority to regulate any

food product meant for cattle consumption and further that the Act having

been enacted by the Parliament for laying down scientific standards for

articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale

and import and to ensure availability of safe food for human consumption,

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 17 of 45

does not permit regulating cattle feed. In this view, the submission is that

the impugned regulation is beyond the regulation making powers conferred

on the Food Authority under the Act and therefore, it is ultra vires the Act,

2006.

11. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to the long title of the Act,

2006, which clearly provides that the Central Legislature has enacted the

Act for regulating food for human consumption and not for regulating the

food for cattle. The long title of the Act, 2006 has already been quoted

above.

12. Referring to various provisions of the Act, 2006, it has been

contended on behalf of the petitioner that the entire statutory scheme

embodied in the Act, 2006 is in relation to food for human consumption.

She has submitted that the expression „food‟ has been defined in Section 3

(1) (j) of the Act, 2006, a perusal of which reveals that „food‟ means any

substance, whether processed or un-processed or partially processed, which

is intended for human consumption. The submission is that the expression

„human consumption‟ occurs at two places in Section 3(1)(j), which defines

„food‟ and accordingly, wherever the expression „food‟ occurs in the Act, it

will have to be construed to mean food for human consumption which, thus,

explicitly does not include any cattle feed.

13. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 2 of the Act, 2006,

which declares expediency for the Union of India to take under its control

the food industry, and „food industry‟, according to the definition of the

expression „food‟ under Section 3 (1)(j) of Act, 2006, would mean food

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 18 of 45

industry engaged in manufacture, import, sale etc., of food meant for human

consumption.

14. Similarly, while defining „consumer‟ in Section 3 (1)(f) of the Act,

2006, it is provided that consumer would mean persons purchasing and

receiving food in order to meet their personal needs and „food‟ here would

also, according to the petitioner, be confined to food for human

consumption. Reference has also been given in this regard to the definition

of the expression „food safety‟ occurring in Section 3 (1)(q) of the Act,

2006, according to which food safety means assurance that food is

acceptable for human consumption. Definition of the expressions „primary

food‟, „safe‟ and „unsafe food‟ occurring in Section 3 (1) (zk), (zr) and (zz)

have also been referred to, which according to the petitioner, refer to food

for human consumption.

15. It has further been argued by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner that Section 16 of Act, 2016 defines the duties and functions of

the Food Authority according to which it is the duty of the Food Authority

to regulate and monitor the manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and

import of food so as to ensure safe and wholesome food and since the word

„food‟ has been defined in Section 3 (1)(j) to mean food for human

consumption, as such the duties and functions entrusted to the Food

Authority under Section 16 will extend to regulating and monitoring the

manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food for human

consumption. It is thus submitted, that duties and functions of the Food

Authority as defined in Section 16 of the Act, 2006 do not include the

functions of the Food Authority to regulate or monitor the food which is

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 19 of 45

meant for feeding the cattle, and accordingly in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 16, the Food Authority was not empowered to make

any regulations or any other provision regulating the manufacture,

processing etc. of food article which is meant for feeding the cattle.

16. It is also the submission on behalf of the petitioner that regulation

making power has been conferred upon the Food Authority by Section 92 of

the Act, 2006 and since the impugned Regulation has been framed in

purported exercise of powers conferred on the Food Authority under Section

92 (2)(e), therefore, the source of power to frame the impugned Regulation

has to be traced to Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006.

17. In this regard, it has been stated that the provisions contained in

Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006 empowers the Food Authority to make

regulations for notifying standards and guidelines in relation to articles of

food meant for human consumption under Section 16 (2) of the Act, 2006.

It is thus contended that the expression „food meant for human consumption‟

specifically occurs in Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006 and, therefore, any

regulation notifying standards and guidelines in relation to any article of

food, which is meant for feeding the cattle, will be beyond the power

conferred on the Food Authority under Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006.

18. The provisions of Section 97 of the Act, 2006 has also been referred

to by Ms.Divan to submit that the „repeal and savings‟ clause contained

therein repeals certain Enactments and Orders as enlisted in the Second

Schedule appended to the Act, 2006 and a perusal of the Enactments and

Orders enlisted in the Second Schedule reveal that all the said provisions

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 20 of 45

related to regulating the food meant for human consumption.

19. In sum and substance, the argument is that since the impugned

regulation, specifically Note (c), requires compliance of certain

requirements in relation to food meant for consumption of milk and meat

producing animals and not for any food article meant for human

consumption as such, the requirements mentioned in the said Note, which

are mandated to be fulfilled by food business operators are clearly beyond

the regulating powers of the Food Authority as conferred by the Act, 2006

and, therefore, the same is not tenable. It is also the submission on behalf of

the petitioner that the entire scheme of the Act, 2006 provides for ensuring

food safety in respect of the food articles meant for human consumption and

not for regulating the cattle feed and, therefore, any provision made by the

Food Authority by framing Regulations in relation to cattle feed is ultra

vires of the Act, 2006.

* Food Authority could not have found an indirect way for achieving

something, which could not be achieved by it directly:-

20. Ms.Divan has drawn our attention, in support of the said submission,

to the directions dated 10.12.2019 issued by the Food Authority in purported

exercise of its power under Section 16 (5) of the Act, 2006 and has

submitted that the said direction was issued by the Food Authority without

appropriate amendments to the Act, 2006, though the Authority itself has

stated in the said direction dated 10.12.2019 that it was examining the

possibility of framing feed regulations supported by appropriate

amendments to the Act. It is, thus, the submission on behalf of the petitioner

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 21 of 45

that even the Food Authority was well aware that the impugned Regulation

could not be framed by it without appropriately amending the Act, 2006,

however, the Regulations have been issued without making any amendment

in the Act, that is to say, the object which is sought to be achieved by

promulgating the impugned Regulation could have been achieved only after

amendment in the Act, 2006 and not otherwise.

21. Paragraph 2 of the direction dated 10.12.2019 is extracted herein

below:-

2. In this context, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

(FSSAI) is examining the possibility of framing feed regulations,

supported with appropriate amendments to the Act. Meanwhile, in

order to address the issue on an interim basis, it has been decided

that commercial feeds/feed materials intended for food producing

animals shall comply with the relevant BIS standards and shall not

be manufactured, imported, distributed and sold except under the

Bureau of Indian Standards Certification Mark.‖

22. Ms.Divan has, accordingly, argued that by enacting the impugned

Regulation, specifically Note (c), the Food Authority has resorted to finding

an indirect way of framing the regulation though the object sought to be

achieved by impugned Regulation could have been achieved only by

resorting to a direct way of amending the Act, 2006 and not otherwise. Thus

the submission is that even the Food Authority was of the opinion that the

impugned Regulation could not be issued without providing, by way of

amendment, the enabling provisions under the Act, 2006 and therefore

impugned regulation is not tenable in law.

23. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 22 of 45

Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors. [(2010) 13

SCC 336], Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253] and

Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare, (1975) 1 SCC 559 to

impress upon the Court that where power is given to do a certain act in a

certain way, such act must be done in that way alone or not at all and that

any other method of performance of such an act is necessarily forbidden.

* Food Authority could not have made BIS standard mandatory,

which is otherwise voluntary:-

24. Referring to Section 16 (1)(b) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act,

2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “BIS Act, 2016”), it has been contended

on behalf of the petitioner that in a situation where the Central Government

forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest

or for protection of human, animal or plant health, safety of the

environment, or prevention of unfair trade practices or national security, the

Central Government after consulting the Bureau of Indian Standards may by

an order to be published in the Official Gazette notify essential requirements

to which such goods, articles or processes or systems or services shall

conform to a standard and direct the use of the Standard Mark under a

license or certificate of conformity as compulsory on such goods or articles

or processes or systems or services.

25. It has, thus, been argued that the impugned Note (c), which provides

that commercial feeds shall comply with the relevant standards as may be

specified by the Food Authority from time to time and carry BIS

certification mark on the label, is illegal in absence of any notification to be

issued under Section 16 (1)(b) of the BIS Act, 2016 notifying essential

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 23 of 45

requirements to which any food item shall be required to conform to a BIS

Standard, which would be making use of the Standard Mark under a license,

as compulsory.

26. Ms.Divan has, thus, contended that mandating compliance with the

relevant BIS standards is the function of the Central Government, which

emanates from Section 16 of the BIS Act, 2016 and not from either Section

16 or Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006. She has further argued that there is

no notification issued in terms of Section 16 (1)(b) under BIS Act, 2016 and

in absence whereof, by framing a subordinate legislature in the form of the

impugned Regulation, it could not be made mandatory by the Food

Authority that commercial feed shall comply with the relevant BIS standard

or the commercial feeds shall carry BIS Certification Mark on the label of

the food product. In this regard, it has also been submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that compliance with the BIS standard, as established by the

Bureau under the relevant provisions of BIS Act, 2016, is voluntary unless

the same is made mandatory/compulsory by way of issuing a notification

under Section 16 of the BIS Act by the Central Government.

27. Reference in this regard has also been made to the provisions

contained in Rule 24 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 2018

(hereinafter referred to as the “BIS Rules, 2018”) framed under Section 38

of the BIS Act, 2016, which provides that the Indian standards are voluntary

and, their implementation depends upon the adoption by the concerned

parties except as otherwise provided in sub-Rule 2 of Rule 24. Rule 24 (2)

clearly states that an Indian standard shall be binding if it is stipulated in a

contract or referred to in a Legislation or made mandatory by specific orders

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 24 of 45

of the Government. The submission is that as per Rule 24(2), any Indian

standard can be said to be binding only if such a stipulation is found in a

contract or is referred to in a Legislation or is made mandatory by means of

an order of the Central Government and since the impugned Regulation

issued by the Food Authority is neither a contract nor a Legislation and nor

can amount to an order of the Central Government, the same is even in

violation of Rule 24 (2) of the BIS Rules, 2018.

28. Pithily stated the argument is that unless and until a notification under

Section 16 (1) of BIS Act, 2016 is issued by the Central Government

making any standard mandatory or compulsory, BIS standard could not be

made compulsory by framing the regulations under the Act, 2006 and,

therefore, the Food Authority has resorted to an indirect mode of making the

BIS standard compulsorily applicable to commercial feed, which is legally

impermissible.

* In view of Entry 15 of List II–State List of Seventh Schedule of the

Constitution of India, it is the State Government which could make law

regulating preservation, protection and improvement of stock and

prevention of animal disease etc., and not the Central Government.

29. Ms.Divan has drawn our attention to Entry 15 of List II of Seventh

Schedule of the Constitution of India and has stated that any Legislation on

the subject relating to prevention, protection and improvement of livestock

and prevention of animal disease, veterinary training and practice is the

preserve of the State Legislature and since impugned Note (c) introduced by

the amending Regulation is in relation to protection of livestock as such, the

same is beyond competence of either the Central Government or any Central

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 25 of 45

Government Authority including the Food Authority.

* The directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 issued

by the Food Authority are beyond its competence.

30. Referring to the impugned directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020

and 01.01.2021, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

said directives have been issued repeatedly in exercise of the powers

conferred on the Food Authority under Section 16 (5), however, the same

are beyond the legal competence of the Authority for the reason that the

impugned directive makes it mandatory for the commercial feeds/feed

material intended for food producing animals to comply with the relevant

BIS standards, which is not only impermissible under Section 16 (5) of the

Act, 2006, but such provision can be made mandatory only by the Central

Government by issuing a notification under Section 16 of the BIS Act, 2016.

The submission in this regard is that Section 16 (5) of the Act, 2006, though

empowers the Food Authority to give such directions on matters relating to

food safety and standards from time to time to the Commissioner of Food

Safety who shall be bound by such direction, however, the scope of issuing

direction under Section 16 (5) will be confined to the matters which are

within the scope of the Act, 2006 and not beyond it. In other words, it has

been stated that since the scheme of the Act, 2006 is in relation to regulating

the food items for human consumption and not for cattle feed, the power of

Food Authority under Section 16 (5) can be exercised only in relation to

issuing direction confined to food items meant for human consumption and

not for those which are meant for feeding the cattle.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 26 of 45

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

31. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 has been

filed opposing the writ petition. It has been argued by learned counsel

representing the respondents that the Act, 2006 was enacted for providing a

single reference point for all matters relating to food safety and standards

and its regulation and enforcement. It has further been argued that Section

16 (1) of the Act, 2006 empowers the Food Authority to regulate and

monitor the distribution and sale of food to ensure public health and safety

whereas, Section 16 (2) vests necessary powers with the Food Authority to

set standards and guidelines in relation to food articles, specifying the

system for enforcement of such standards as well as food labelling

standards.

32. Reference has been made to a D.O. letter dated 05.09.2019 sent by the

Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the Government of India

to the Food Authority, raising the concerns related to import of dairy

products from various countries and stating that milk product containing

animal rennet should be labelled and further that a declaration on Sanitary

Import Permit may be required to be made that source animals have never

been fed with feeds produced from internal organs, blood meal and disease

of ruminant origin. Pursuant to the said letter of the Department of Animal

Husbandry and Dairying, a meeting of the officials from the said

Department, Ministry of Commerce and Food Authority was held and,

accordingly, directions dated 10.12.2019 had been issued under Section 16

(5) of the Act, 2006 to address the said concern expressed in the D.O. letter

of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying dated 05.09.2019.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 27 of 45

33. It is also the case set up by the respondents that the impugned

Regulation was issued only after inviting the comments and suggestions

from the general public by issuing a draft regulation with a view to provide

for requirements in respect of animal feed, however, no

comments/suggestions or objections were ever received from the petitioner

against the draft notification and, therefore, the draft notification was

approved by the Food Authority in its 33

rd

meeting and, accordingly, the

impugned Regulation has been notified in the official gazette on 15.11.2021.

34. Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn our attention to a

letter dated 01.01.2025, which contains the reply sought by the petitioner to

a couple of queries made by it under Right to Information Act, 2005. It has

been submitted that the queries made under the Right to Information Act,

2005 by the petitioner were whether BIS Regulation is mandatory for cattle

feed manufacturing plants and whether cattle feed can be sold without any

BIS license, BIS logo, public certification or Monogram.

35. The reply given to the said queries, as contained in the letter dated

01.01.2025 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, states that cattle feed as per

IS 2052:2023 is under mandatory BIS certification, details of which are

available in public domain and can be accessed on the website address of

Bureau of Indian Standards, which is given in the reply itself.

36. At this juncture itself we may, however, note that though, if the

website as given in the reply dated 01.01.2025 under the Right to

Information Act, 2005 is visited, the cattle feed is found where BIS

certification is mandatory, however, the said website does not contain any

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 28 of 45

such corresponding notification under Section 16 of the BIS Act, 2016. The

respondents have also not enclosed any notification under Section 16 of the

BIS Act, 2016 for making the BIS standard compulsory for animal feed.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

* If the impugned Regulation is ultra vires the Act, 2006:-

37. The sheet-anchor of argument challenging the impugned Regulation

on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned Regulation is ultra vires the

Act, 2006. In other words, the submission is that the impugned Regulation

is beyond the scope and power of the Food Authority under the Act, 2006.

38. Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. v. P

Krishnamurthy & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 517, while laying down the tests for

finding out as to whether a subordinate Legislation is valid, has discussed

various grounds available for such a challenge. The Apex Court has

observed that, while considering validity of a subordinate Legislation the

Court will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling

Act and also the area over which power has been delegated and then decide

whether the subordinate Legislation conforms to the Parent Statute. It has

further been held that in a case where subordinate Legislation is directly

inconsistent with the provision of the statute, the task of the Court becomes

simple and easy, however, where the contention is that the inconsistency or

non-conformity of the subordinate Legislation is not with reference to any

specific provision of the enabling Act but with the object and scheme of the

Parent Act, the Court should proceed with caution before declaring any

subordinate Legislation invalid.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 29 of 45

39. Recognizing the principle that the subordinate Legislation does not

carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a

competent Legislature, it has been held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in P

Krishnamurthy & Ors. (supra), referring to Indian Express Newspapers

(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (1) SCC 641, that subordinate

Legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds on which a plenary

Legislation is questioned and in addition, it may also be challenged on the

ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. The

Apex Court further held that such subordinate Legislation may also be

questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. The

underlying principle is that subordinate Legislation must yield to plenary

Legislation. Besides, the subordinate Legislation can also be challenged on

the ground of unreasonableness, not in the sense of not being reasonable, but

in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.

40. Summing up the grounds on which the subordinate Legislation can be

challenged, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the report in P

Krishnamurthy & Ors. (supra) has observed as under:-

―15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity

of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks

it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a

subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the

following grounds:

(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate

legislation.

(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of India.

(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.

(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 30 of 45

exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.

(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.

(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the

court might well say that the legislature never intended to give

authority to make such rules).‖

41. Paragraphs 16 & 17 of Krishnamurthy & Ors. (supra) is also relevant

to be quoted, which read as under:-

16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation,

will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling

Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under

the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation

conforms to the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent

with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task

of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention is that the

inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference to

any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and

scheme of the parent Act, the court should proceed with caution

before declaring invalidity.

17. In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of

India [(1985) 1 SCC 641 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 121] this Court referred

to several grounds on which a subordinate legislation can be

challenged as follows: (SCC p. 689, para 75)

―75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the

same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute

passed by a competent legislature. Subordinate legislation

may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary

legislation is questioned. In addition it may also be

questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the

statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned

on the ground that it is contrary to some other statute. That

is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary

legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it

is unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being

reasonable, but in the sense that it is manifestly

arbitrary.‖(emphasis supplied)‖;

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 31 of 45

42. Reference can also be made to the judgment in Kerala State

Electricity Board & Ors. v. Thomas Joseph alias Thomas M.J. & Ors.

(2023) 11 SCC 700, wherein it has been observed by Hon‟ble Supreme

Court that delegated Legislation has come to stay as a component of modern

administrative powers and, therefore, the question is not whether there ought

to be delegated Legislation or not, but that it should operate under proper

controls so that it may be ensured that the power given to the administration

is exercised properly. The Court further observed that the subordinate

Legislation has to necessarily function within the purview of the statute and

that it should not travel beyond the purview of the Parent Act. It has been

also observed that if any piece of delegated Legislation travels beyond the

purview of the Parent Act, it will be ultra vires and cannot be given effect

to.

43. Paragraph 71 of the judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board

(supra) is apposite to reproduce here, which reads as under:-

―71. Delegated legislation has come to stay as a necessary

component of the modern administrative process. Therefore, the

question today is not whether there ought to be delegated

legislation or not, but that it should operate under proper controls

so that it may be ensured that the power given to the

Administration is exercised properly; the benefits of the institution

may be utilised, but its disadvantages minimised. The doctrine of

ultra vires envisages that a rule-making body must function within

the purview of the rule-making authority conferred on it by the

parent Act. As the body making rules or regulations has no

inherent power of its own to make rules, but derives such power

only from the statute, it has to necessarily function within the

purview of the statute. Delegated legislation should not travel

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 32 of 45

beyond the purview of the parent Act. If it does, it is ultra vires

and cannot be given any effect. Ultra vires may arise in several

ways; there may be simple excess of power over what is conferred

by the parent Act; delegated legislation may be inconsistent with

the provisions of the parent Act or statute law or the general law;

there may be non-compliance with the procedural requirement as

laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of the courts to keep

all authorities within the confines of the law by supplying the

doctrine of ultra vires.‖

44. In Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. Institute of Chartered Accountants

of India & Ors. [(2024) 13 SCC 241] the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, after

a thorough review of the law relating to challenge to subordinate/delegated

Legislation, laid down certain principles for adjudging its validity. The

Apex Court in Naresh Chandra Agrawal (supra) has considered in detail

the principle relating to “generality versus enumeration” in relation to

certain clauses occurring in various Legislations permitting framing of

delegated/subordinate Legislations. The Court has considered various such

clauses occurring in particular section of such statutes, such as „to carry out

the provisions of this Act‟ or „to carry out the purposes of this Act‟ or „in

particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power‟.

45. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has, thus, noticed the key principle by

interpreting from interpretation of such clauses, according to which even if

specific topics are not explicitly listed in the statute, the formulation of rules

can be justified if it falls within the general power conferred, provided it

stays within the overall scope of the Act.

46. Paragraph 28 of the judgment in Naresh Chandra Agrawal (supra) is

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 33 of 45

extracted herein below:-

―28. A key principle emerges from this interpretation: even if

specific topics are not explicitly listed in the statute, the

formulation of rules can be justified if it falls within the general

power conferred, provided it stays within the overall scope of the

Act. This mode of interpretation has been categorised as the

―generality versus enumeration‖ principle in some precedents of

this Court [ See, BSNL v. TRAI, (2014) 3 SCC 222; King

Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, 1945 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1944-45)

72 IA 241 : AIR 1945 PC 156; Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P., 1963

SCC OnLine SC 76 : AIR 1964 SC 264; Rohtak & Hissar Districts

Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1965 SCC OnLine SC 75

: AIR 1966 SC 1471; K. Ramanathan v. State of T.N., (1985) 2

SCC 116 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 162; D.K. Trivedi & Sons v. State of

Gujarat, 1986 Supp SCC 20] . This delicate balance between

specificity and generality in legal delegation is crucial for

effective governance and adaptability to evolving legal

landscapes.‖

47. As observed above Naresh Chandra Agrawal (supra) has at length

referred to various past precedents and after discussing the same

summarised certain legal principles that are relevant for adjudicating cases

where subordinate Legislation is challenged on the ground of the same being

ultra vires the Parent Act. The said summary can be found in paragraphs 37

of the report, which is extracted herein below:-

―37. From reference to the precedents discussed above and

taking an overall view of the instant matter, we proceed to distil

and summarise the following legal principles that may be

relevant in adjudicating cases where subordinate legislation are

challenged on the ground of being ―ultra vires‖ the parent Act:

37.1. The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a rule-making

body must function within the purview of the rule-making

authority, conferred on it by the parent Act. As the body making

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 34 of 45

Rules or Regulations has no inherent power of its own to make

rules, but derives such power only from the statute, it must

necessarily function within the purview of the statute. Delegated

legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the parent

Act.

37.2. Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple

excess of power over what is conferred by the parent Act;

delegated legislation may be inconsistent with the provisions of

the parent Act; there may be non-compliance with the procedural

requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function of

the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the law by

supplying the doctrine of ultra vires.

37.3. If a rule is challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground

that it exceeds the power conferred by the parent Act, the Court

must, firstly, determine and consider the source of power which

is relatable to the rule. Secondly, it must determine the meaning

of the subordinate legislation itself and finally, it must decide

whether the subordinate legislation is consistent with and within

the scope of the power delegated.

37.4. Delegated rule-making power in statutes generally follows

a standardised pattern. A broad section grants authority with

phrases like ―to carry out the provisions‖ or ―to carry out the

purposes‖. Another sub-section specifies areas for delegation,

often using language like ―without prejudice to the generality of

the foregoing power‖. In determining if the impugned rule is

intra vires/ultra vires the scope of delegated power, courts have

applied the ―generality vs. enumeration‖ principle.‖

37.5. The ―generality vs. enumeration‖ principle lays down that,

where a statute confers particular powers without prejudice to

the generality of a general power already conferred, the

particular powers are only illustrative of the general power, and

do not in any way restrict the general power. In that sense, even

if the impugned rule does not fall within the enumerated heads,

that by itself will not determine if the rule is ultra vires/intra

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 35 of 45

vires. It must be further examined if the impugned rule can be

upheld by reference to the scope of the general power.

37.6. The delegated power to legislate by making rules ―for

carrying out the purposes of the Act‖ is a general delegation,

without laying down any guidelines as such. When such a power

is given, it may be permissible to find out the object of the

enactment and then see if the rules framed satisfy the Act of

having been so framed as to fall within the scope of such general

power confirmed.

37.7. However, it must be remembered that such power delegated

by an enactment does not enable the authority, by

rules/regulations, to extend the scope or general operation of the

enactment but is strictly ancillary. It will authorise the provision

of subsidiary means of carrying into effect what is enacted in the

statute itself and will cover what is incidental to the execution of

its specific provision. In that sense, the general power cannot be

so exercised as to bring into existence substantive rights or

obligations or disabilities not contemplated by the provisions of

the Act itself.

37.8. If the rule-making power is not expressed in such a usual

general form but are specifically enumerated, then it shall have

to be seen if the rules made are protected by the limits prescribed

by the parent Act. ―

48. Keeping in view the above principles in mind, we may now proceed

to consider the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner challenging

the impugned Regulation. As already noticed above, from a perusal of the

provisions of the Act, 2006 and also what the Long Title of the said Act

provides for, what we notice is that the Parliament has enacted the Act, 2006

for the purposes of regulating, manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and

import of food for human consumption to ensure availability of safe and

wholesome food. In the Act, everywhere the expression „food‟ occurs,

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 36 of 45

which has been explicitly defined in Section 3 (1) (j) according to which

„food‟ means any substance, processed or partially processed or

unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption. Such „food‟ for

human consumption, according to the definition clause, will include primary

food, genetically modified or engineered food or food containing some

ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drinks, chewing

gum and any other substance used into the food during its manufacture,

preparation or treatment. The definition clause clearly reveals that „it does

not include any animal feed‟. It also does not include plant prior to

harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetic, narcotic or psychotropic

substances.

49. At various places in the Act the expressions like „food safety‟,

„primary food‟, „unsafe food‟, „sale of food‟ etc., occur, however such

expressions, in our opinion, could not include any feed or food not meant for

human consumption such as cattle feed or animal feed. What has been

provided in Note (c) occurring in the impugned Regulation is that all the

products listed in Regulation 2.5.2 shall comply with the requirement that

milk and meat producing animals except poultry, pig and fish shall not be

fed with feed containing meat or bone meal including internal organs, blood

meal and tissues of bovine or porcine origin material except milk and milk

products. The impugned Note (c) thus regulates feed to be given to milk and

meat producing animals. In other words it regulates the cattle or animal

feed, which is clearly outside the scope of the Act, 2006 in the sense that the

very scheme of the Act is such that the provisions therein can be put to

service only to regulate the food for human consumption and not the feed for

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 37 of 45

the use of cattle or animals.

50. Further, we also notice that Note (c) in the impugned Regulation also

requires that commercial feed shall comply with the BIS standards as may

be specified by the Food Authority from time to time and shall carry BIS

certification mark on the label of the product. Such prescription, in our

opinion, is also beyond the scope of the Act, 2006 for the reason that the

provisions contained in Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 provide that

compliance with the relevant BIS standards is voluntary and not mandatory

whereas the impugned Regulation makes the same to be mandatory.

51. It is also worthwhile to notice at this juncture itself, that Rule 24 of

the BIS Rules, 2018 clearly state that Indian Standards are voluntary and

their implementation depends on adoption by concerned parties and further

that it shall be binding only if it is stipulated in a contract or is referred to in

a Legislation or is mandatory by a specific order of the Government. The

respondents have not been able to produce before the Court any order issued

by the Central Government under the provisions of the BIS Act, 2016 or the

Rules made thereunder making BIS standards mandatory so far as the

commercial feed is concerned.

52. We may also refer to Section 25 of the BIS Act, 2016 which provides

that the Bureau shall be bound by the directions issued by the Central

Government for exercise of its power and performance or its function under

the BIS Act, 2016. However, no such direction issued by the Central

Government under the BIS Act, or Rules, as already observed above, has

been placed before the Court, whereby the BIS standards in respect of

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 38 of 45

commercial feed has been made mandatory.

53. We may also refer to the duties and functions of the Food Authority

as referred to in Section 16 of the Act, 2006. The said provision entrusts the

Food Authority with various functions and cast duties to regulate and

monitor manufacture, processing, distribution, sale and import of food so as

to ensure safe and wholesome food. The expression „food‟ occurring here

has to be understood in the context of how Section 3 (1)(j) of the Act, 2006

defines this expression, according to which food would mean a substance for

human consumption. In absence of specific inclusion of any substance as

food for animal consumption or cattle feed or feed for animal in the

definition clause, in our considered opinion, all the functions of the Food

Authority vested in Section 16 and duties cast on it are in relation to food for

human consumption and will not include the animal or cattle feed.

54. The Regulation making powers are conferred upon the Food

Authority under Section 92 of the Food Act, 2006. While making the

impugned Regulation, reference has been given by the Food Authority to

Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006 according to which the Food Authority

may make Regulations with previous approval of the Central Government

for notifying standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food meant

for human consumption, under sub-Section 2 of Section 16.

55. The occurrence of the expression „food meant for human

consumption‟ specifically in Section 92 (2)(e) of the Act, 2006 in our

opinion, would not permit the Food Authority to make regulations notifying

standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food beyond human

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 39 of 45

consumption. Any regulation, thus, can be made under Section 92 (2)(e) of

the Act, 2006 only in relation to food for human consumption which would

not include cattle or animal feed.

56. Thus having regard to the scheme of the Act, 2006, the purpose for

which it has been enacted by the Central Legislature and also the extent of

Regulation making power available under Section 92 of the Act, 2006 and

the duties and functions of the Food Authority under Section 16 of the said

Act, what we conclude is that any Regulation made by the Food Authority

regulating cattle feed or animal feed would travel beyond the scope of the

Act, 2006, which is the enabling Legislation. The impugned Regulation,

specifically Note (c), thus not only is beyond the scheme and scope of the

Act, 2006 but it also clearly appears to be inconsistent with the enabling

Legislation for the reason that enabling Legislation does not confer any

authority or power to the Food Authority to make any such Regulation

where regulation of cattle feed and animal feed is sought.

57. As far as requirement of compliance with the relevant BIS standards

by commercial feed is concerned, Rule 24 of the BIS Rules, 2018

specifically provides that the Indian Standards are voluntary and their

implementation is dependent upon adoption of concerned parties. Sub-rule 2

of Rule 24 provides that Indian Standard will be binding only if it is

stipulated in a contract or referred to in a Legislation or may mandatory by

specific orders of the Government. Section 25 of BIS Act, 2016 empowers

the Central Government to issue directions, which is to be mandatorily

followed by the Bureau. The respondents have not been able to produce or

furnish any such order issued by the Central Government in terms of either

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 40 of 45

Section 16 (1)(b) or 25 of the BIS Act, 2016 or Rule 24 of the Rules framed

thereunder, whereby BIS standards has been made mandatory to be followed

in case of commercial feeds.

58. An attempt in this regard was made by the respondents to submit that

the BIS standards in respect of commercial feed is binding by referring to

the information given under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide letter

dated 01.01.2025 wherein in respect of a query, it was informed by the

Bureau of Indian Standards to the petitioner that cattle feed as per IS

2052:2023 is under mandatory BIS certification. The reply further states

that details of products under mandatory/compulsory BIS certification is

available in public domain and can be accessed on the address of the website

given thereunder. However, we may note that the respondents have

completely failed to produce any such detail which is allegedly available on

the address of the website given in the reply under the Right to Information

Act vide letter dated 01.01.2025 depicting any order of the Government of

India issued either under Section 16 (1)(b) or 25 of the BIS Act, 2016 or

under the Rules framed thereunder making observance of BIS Standard

compulsory for commercial feed.

59. Thus in absence of any order issued by the Central Government

referable to Section 16 (1)(b) or 25 of the BIS Act, 2016 or Rule 24 of the

BIS Rules, 2018, as clearly provided in Rule 24 (1) of the BIS Rules the

Indian Standards are voluntary and, therefore, making it mandatory without

any order passed by the Central Government under the BIS Act, 2016 or the

Rules, in our opinion is not tenable. Such mandate of observing the BIS

standard in respect of cattle feed is not mandatory also for the reason that

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 41 of 45

Regulation making powers under Section 92 of the Act, 2006 or Section 16

of the said Act does not permit the Food Authority to make any Regulation

outside the purview of Enabling Act, namely the Act, 2006. Making any

BIS standard mandatory is the function of the Central Government and the

Bureau created under the BIS Act, 2016 and in absence of any such

direction of the Central Government either under the BIS Act, 2016 or BIS

Rules, 2018, in our opinion, it was not competent for the Food Authority to

have made the requirement of BIS standard mandatory to be followed in

case of commercial feed for the reason that the Food Authority lacks any

such jurisdiction to make any such Regulation.

60. We have already noticed the law laid down in Naresh Chandra

Agrawal (supra) and P Krishnamurthy & Ors. (supra) wherein it has

clearly been held that the Rule making body must function within the

purview of the Rule making Authority conferred on it by the Enabling Act

and that such a body is not possessed of any inherent power of its own to

make rules but it derives such power only from the statute and, therefore, it

must necessarily function within the purview of the statute. In other words

the delegated Legislation should not travel beyond the purview of the

enabling Parent Act. If the impugned Regulation is tested on the said

touchstone, what we clearly find from the discussions already made above,

is that the impugned Regulation travels beyond the purview of the Act,

2006.

61. The Regulation making power as per Section 92 of the Act, 2006

conferred upon the Food Authority states that it will have the authority to

make Regulations on certain matters which are enumerated therein,

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 42 of 45

however, such power is without prejudice to the generality of the Regulation

making power.

62. As discussed in Naresh Chandra Agrawal (supra), the principle

“generality versus enumeration” lays down that where a statute confers

particular power without prejudice to the generality of the general power,

the particular powers are only illustrative of the general power. It has

further been held that such power does not, in any way, restrict the general

power and, therefore, in a case where the subordinate Legislation, which is

challenged, does not fall within the enumerated heads, that itself will not

determine if such subordinate Legislation is ultra vires the Enabling

Legislation. What further needs to be gone into is that if the impugned

subordinate Legislation can be upheld by reference to the scope of the

general power.

63. The scope of general power for making Regulations conferred on the

Food Authority under Section 92 (1) is power to make Regulations

consistent with the Act, 2006 and the Rules made thereunder, to carry out

the provisions of the said Act. As already discussed above, the provisions of

the Act, 2006 are only in relation to regulating food for human consumption,

which in our opinion, as per the scheme of the Act and its object, would not

include cattle feed or animal feed. Thus the generality of the power of

making Regulations vested in the Food Authority under Section 92 (1)

cannot be stretched to include power to make Regulations outside the

purview of the Act, 2006. The subject relating to cattle or animal feed, as

discussed above, lies outside the purview of the Act, 2006 and, therefore, no

aid can be taken by the respondents to defend the impugned Regulation by

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 43 of 45

referring to generality of the Regulation making power available to the Food

Authority under Section 92 (1) of the Act, 2006.

64. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to conclude that the

impugned Regulations are beyond the purview of the Act, 2006 and,

therefore, the same are ultra vires the Act itself.

65. As regards the impugned directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and

01.01.2021, we may observe that the said directions have purportedly been

issued by the Food Authority under Section 16 (5) of the Act, 2006, which

in our opinion, permits the Food Authority to issue such directions to the

Commissioner of Food Safety only in relation to matters relating to „food,

safety and standards‟. The expression „food, safety and standards‟ here also

has to be understood, in our opinion, in terms of the definition of expression

„food‟ and „food safety‟ occurring in Section 3 (1)(j) and 3 (1)(q) of the Act,

2006.

66. In both the said clauses, the expression „for human consumption‟

occurs and, accordingly, any reference to „food‟ will have to be considered

as food for human consumption and „food safety‟ will have to be considered

as safety of food for human consumption. Therefore, in our opinion, sub-

Section 5 of Section 16 of the Act, 2006 cannot be permitted to put to

service for issuing any directions in relation to cattle feed or animal feed

thus the directions dated 10.02.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021, which are

under challenge herein, are not tenable being beyond the scope of the power

of the Food Authority under Section 16 (5) of the Act, 2006.

67. We may refer to the first such directive dated 10.12.2019, wherein as

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 44 of 45

well it finds mentioned that the Food Authority itself was examining the

permissibility of framing feed Regulation supported with appropriate

amendments to the Act. Paragraph 2 of the direction dated 10.12.2019

unambiguously captures the said fact. It appears that the Food Authority

itself was not clear if any such feed Regulation can be issued without

appropriate amendments to the Act, 2006.

68. For the aforesaid reasons, our opinion is that the impugned Regulation

as also the directions dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 are

illegal and thus not tenable being ultra vires to the Act, 2006.

69. It is not that independent of the Act, 2006 and the impugned

Regulations, BIS standards cannot be made mandatory for commercial

feeds, however, for that purpose appropriate recourse would have to be

taken by the respondents to the relevant provisions of the Bureau of Indian

Standards Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder. The BIS standards

are primarily voluntary, which, however, can be made mandatory only if the

Central Government takes appropriate steps for issuing any such direction as

per the requirement of the BIS Act, 2016 and the Rules framed thereunder.

70. For the discussions made and reasons given above, the writ petition

deserves to be allowed.

71. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the Note (c) appended to

Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards

and Food Additives), Regulation 2011, is hereby quashed. The directives

dated 10.12.2019, 27.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 issued by the Food Authority

are also quashed.

W.P.(C) 1079/2025 Page 45 of 45

72. The writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

73. No orders as to costs.

(DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(TEJAS KARIA)

JUDGE

APRIL 07 , 2026

S.Rawat