Can’t Extend Reach To Cattle Feed Industry: Delhi HC Strikes Down FSSAI Rules Regulating Animal Feed

The Delhi High Court has struck down regulatory amendments and directives issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) that sought to govern the composition and certification of commercial animal feed, holding that such measures fall outside the scope of the parent statute.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia allowed a writ petition filed by Godrej Agrovet Ltd and ruled that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is confined to regulating food meant for human consumption.

The Court concluded that the FSSAI had exceeded its statutory mandate by attempting to regulate animal and cattle feed under the Act.

The dispute arose from a challenge to Note (c) appended to Regulation 2.5.2 of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011.

The impugned provision prohibited the use of certain meat and bone meals in feed for milk and meat-producing animals and required commercial feed to comply with standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), including mandatory certification.

Tracing the statutory framework, the Court emphasised that the scheme of the 2006 Act is centred on ensuring safe and wholesome food for human consumption. It noted that the definition of “food” under Section 3(1)(j) is comprehensive and includes a wide range of consumable items such as processed and unprocessed food, packaged drinking water, infant food, and genetically modified products.

However, the definition does not extend to animal feed.

The Bench held that this exclusion was decisive in determining the limits of the FSSAI’s regulatory authority. It observed that any attempt to bring animal feed within the fold of the Act would amount to expanding the statute beyond its intended scope.

The Court also examined the manner in which the impugned requirements were introduced. It noted that the FSSAI had initially issued directives between December 2019 and January 2021 under Section 16(5) of the Act, before formalising them through an amendment in 2021.

However, it held that such measures could not be sustained in the absence of clear statutory backing.

On the issue of BIS compliance, the Bench held that standards framed under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 2016 are generally voluntary unless specifically made mandatory by a notification issued by the Central Government.

It found that the FSSAI lacked the authority to impose compulsory BIS certification on animal feed through its regulations.

The Court was critical of what it viewed as an indirect attempt by the FSSAI to regulate the animal feed industry without seeking legislative sanction. It held that subordinate legislation cannot be used as a tool to introduce requirements that the parent statute itself does not contemplate.

Further, the Bench noted that matters relating to livestock and preservation of stock fall within the domain of State legislatures under Entry 15 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. This, it observed, reinforced the conclusion that the FSSAI’s intervention in regulating animal feed was misplaced.

Rejecting the reliance placed by the authorities on the general regulation-making power under Section 92 of the Act, the Court clarified that such powers must operate within the boundaries of the statute. It held that the power to frame regulations cannot be stretched to cover subjects that lie outside the legislative framework of the Act.

In this context, the Court underscored that the FSSAI’s authority is limited to prescribing standards for food intended for human consumption. Any regulatory measure extending beyond this domain would be ultra vires and liable to be struck down.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the impugned provision, Note (c) appended to Regulation 2.5.2 of the 2011 Regulations, was beyond the powers conferred under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and could not be sustained in law.

The writ petition was therefore allowed, and the challenged provision was quashed.

Case Title: Godrej Agrovet Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: 07.04.2026