- Introduction
Imagine this situation. A small restaurant owner in Guwahati receives a notice from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) because the packaging on his homemade pickles did not properly mention the batch number. A few years ago, even a technical mistake like this could create panic. The owner might have feared criminal prosecution, repeated visits from inspectors, expensive legal proceedings, and in some situations, even imprisonment. For small food businesses already struggling with rising costs, compliance pressure often felt more frightening than actual business competition.
Food safety is an issue that affects every Indian household. People want clean milk, unadulterated spices, hygienic street food, and properly labelled packaged products. Nobody wants unsafe or contaminated food reaching consumers. At the same time, India’s food economy is heavily dependent on lakhs of small vendors, home kitchens, local sweet shops, cloud kitchens, and family-run restaurants that may not always have legal experts or compliance teams to handle every technical requirement under food laws.[1]
For years, many small businesses complained that the regulatory system treated minor paperwork mistakes and serious food adulteration almost alike. Even small non-harmful violations could trigger criminal consequences, creating fear and mistrust between regulators and businesses. Critics argued that excessive criminalisation discouraged entrepreneurship and increased unnecessary litigation instead of improving actual food safety standards.[2]
This is where the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 brought a major shift in India’s regulatory approach.[3] The idea behind the law is simple but important: not every mistake should lead to criminal punishment. The government started replacing imprisonment for several minor and technical violations with monetary penalties and administrative action. Under the food safety framework, this means that many procedural or compliance-related lapses may now result in fines instead of jail. However, the reform does not reduce the legal responsibility of food businesses to maintain proper safety and hygiene standards.[4]
The change is significant because it attempts to balance two important goals: protecting consumers and reducing unnecessary fear among honest businesses. Supporters believe this reform can improve ease of doing business and encourage better voluntary compliance. Critics, however, worry that reducing criminal penalties may weaken deterrence and allow careless businesses to treat penalties as a routine cost of business.
Consumers should understand that the Jan Vishwas Act does not remove punishment for adulterated or dangerous food. Serious health-related violations still remain criminal offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The reform mainly targets procedural and technical violations.
- What is the Jan Vishwas Act?
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 is one of the biggest legal reform measures introduced by the Indian government in recent years. The law was passed with a simple idea: minor mistakes should not automatically become criminal cases. Instead of treating every technical violation as a crime punishable with imprisonment, the government wanted a more practical system focused on compliance, correction, and trust.[5]
The phrase “Jan Vishwas” itself means “People’s Trust.” The law reflects a shift from an inspector-driven and punishment-heavy system towards what the government calls “trust-based governance.” In plain words, the message is this: the government wants businesses and citizens to follow the rules, but it does not want honest people dragged into criminal litigation for small procedural errors.[6]
The Act amended provisions across more than forty Central laws, including laws related to food safety, environment, agriculture, transport, and commerce.[7] Under many of these laws, imprisonment for minor offences was removed and replaced with civil penalties such as monetary fines, administrative notices, or adjudication proceedings.
In the context of food safety, the reform is especially important for small restaurants, cloud kitchens, home-based food sellers, local bakeries, sweet shops, and street vendors. Earlier, even technical non-compliance such as incorrect labelling, licence display issues, or procedural lapses could create fear of criminal prosecution under certain circumstances. The Jan Vishwas Act attempts to reduce that fear while still keeping strict punishment for dangerous conduct like food adulteration, sale of unsafe food, or intentional fraud.[8]
The government has also linked this reform to its broader “Ease of Doing Business” policy. The logic is straightforward: regulators should focus more on stopping genuinely harmful activities instead of overwhelming courts and businesses with criminal cases for every small error.[9]
However, the Act does not give businesses a free pass. Compliance with food safety rules remains mandatory. The difference is that many minor violations are now treated as regulatory issues rather than criminal offences. Serious threats to public health can still lead to heavy penalties, cancellation of licences, and imprisonment.
- Civil Penalty vs Criminal Imprisonment
One of the biggest changes brought by the Jan Vishwas Act is the shift from criminal punishment to civil penalties for many minor violations. This sounds technical, but the difference is actually very simple.
Earlier, even small compliance mistakes under food safety laws could create fear of criminal prosecution. A food business owner might have to deal with court appearances, legal expenses, and in some cases, the possibility of imprisonment. The new approach tries to separate honest technical mistakes from genuinely dangerous conduct.[10]
In simple words, the government now wants regulators to focus more on correction and compliance rather than automatically threatening jail for every minor issue.
For example, imagine a local bakery prints the expiry date correctly but uses a smaller font size than prescribed under FSSAI packaging rules. This is a violation, but it does not necessarily make the food unsafe. Under the new approach, such a case is more likely to attract a financial penalty or warning instead of criminal prosecution.[11]
Now compare this with a dairy operator deliberately mixing harmful chemicals or detergent into milk to increase profits. The reform attempts to reduce unnecessary criminal pressure for technical violations while allowing regulators to focus more on genuinely harmful practices. In such cases, criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and heavy penalties still apply even after the Jan Vishwas reforms.[12]
The difference between civil and criminal action becomes clearer in the table below:
| Factor | Civil Penalty | Criminal Case |
| Who decides? | Adjudicating Officer or designated authority | Criminal Court |
| Nature of punishment | Monetary fine or administrative action | Jail, fine, or both |
| Risk of arrest | Usually no | Possible |
| Criminal record | Normally no | Yes |
| Public stigma | Comparatively low | High |
| Time taken | Faster resolution | Often lengthy |
| Purpose | Encourage compliance | Punish serious wrongdoing |
| Common examples | Minor labelling mistakes, procedural lapses, licence display issues | Adulterated food, unsafe products, fraud causing harm |
This distinction matters especially for small businesses. Many restaurant owners, home kitchens, and local food sellers do not have large legal teams or compliance departments. Earlier, even small procedural errors could create panic because criminal law carries social stigma and financial stress.[13]
At the same time, consumers should not misunderstand the reform. The Jan Vishwas Act does not legalise unsafe food practices. Selling contaminated or harmful food remains a serious offence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.[14] The law simply recognises that every mistake should not be treated like a criminal act.
The real challenge now is implementation. If regulators become too lenient, food safety may suffer. But if authorities continue using harsh methods even for minor issues, the purpose of the reform will fail. The success of this system depends on balanced and fair enforcement.
- Major Changes in Food Safety Law
The biggest impact of the Jan Vishwas Act can be seen in the way food safety violations are now treated in India. Earlier, the system often worked on a “criminal first” approach. Even small procedural mistakes could expose a food business owner to criminal prosecution, court appearances, and the fear of imprisonment. The new system tries to separate technical non-compliance from genuinely dangerous conduct.[15]
In simple words, the law now recognises an important difference between:
- a harmless paperwork mistake, and
- an act that can seriously damage public health.
This change is extremely important for India’s growing food business sector, especially for small restaurants, home kitchens, street vendors, local bakeries, cloud kitchens, and family-run food shops that often struggle with complicated compliance rules.
BEFORE vs AFTER: What Has Changed?
| Issue | Before Jan Vishwas Act | After Jan Vishwas Act |
| Minor licensing mistakes | Possible criminal prosecution in certain situations | Mostly monetary penalty or administrative action |
| Documentation lapses | Risk of criminal proceedings | Fine and correction opportunity |
| Technical labelling errors | Fear of court process | Civil penalty in many cases |
| Minor procedural non-compliance | Harsh enforcement possible | Compliance-focused approach |
| Unsafe or adulterated food | Criminal offence with imprisonment | No major relaxation, still criminal |
| Serious fraud affecting public health | Jail possible | Jail still applicable |
The government’s message is clear: honest mistakes should be corrected, but dangerous food practices will still be punished strictly.
- Minor Licensing Mistakes
One major area affected by the reform is licensing and registration compliance under FSSAI rules. Earlier, even small issues such as failure to properly display an FSSAI licence number, delay in renewal, or minor mistakes in registration details could create serious legal anxiety for businesses.[16]
For example, imagine a small café owner who forgets to update the business address after shifting locations. Earlier, such technical non-compliance could lead to aggressive enforcement action. Under the present approach, authorities are more likely to impose a monetary penalty and direct the business to correct the mistake within a specified period.
This change matters because many small businesses operate without dedicated legal or compliance teams. They often rely on accountants, consultants, or their own limited understanding of complicated regulations.
However, this does not mean licences are optional. Operating entirely without registration in categories where registration is legally required can still invite strict action.[17]
- Documentation Failures
Food businesses are required to maintain records relating to ingredients, suppliers, hygiene practices, food testing, invoices, and manufacturing details. Documentation helps regulators trace unsafe products and maintain accountability in the food supply chain.[18]
Earlier, incomplete paperwork itself could become a source of criminal pressure. Small businesses frequently complained that they spent more time handling inspectors and paperwork than improving food quality.
The Jan Vishwas reforms attempt to reduce this burden. Many documentation-related lapses are now treated as regulatory violations instead of criminal offences. Authorities may issue notices, provide time for correction, or impose monetary penalties.
For instance, if a bakery fails to maintain updated supplier records but the food itself is not harmful, the issue may now be resolved through adjudication and penalties rather than criminal prosecution.
Still, repeated non-compliance can increase suspicion and attract stricter scrutiny from authorities.
- False Information and Misleading Claims
The law remains strict where businesses intentionally provide false information or mislead consumers. This includes:
- fake health claims,
- misleading advertisements,
- false ingredient declarations,
- or deliberately incorrect information submitted to regulators.[19]
Suppose a company markets a product as “100% pure organic honey” while mixing artificial substances. This is not treated as a harmless technical error. It is considered deceptive conduct that affects consumer rights and public trust.
Similarly, falsely claiming that a product can cure diseases without scientific backing can attract serious legal consequences under food safety and consumer protection laws.
The government’s idea is not to excuse dishonesty. The reform only reduces criminalisation for minor procedural lapses, not deliberate fraud.
- Unsafe Food Still Remains a Criminal Offence
This is the most important point many people misunderstand.
The Jan Vishwas Act has not removed criminal punishment for unsafe food. Serious offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 continue to attract imprisonment and heavy fines.[20]
These include:
- selling adulterated milk,
- using harmful chemicals,
- manufacturing contaminated food,
- using banned substances,
- or selling food likely to injure health.
For example, if a dairy operator mixes detergent or synthetic chemicals into milk to increase profits, the offence directly threatens public health. In such cases, imprisonment is still possible because the issue goes beyond regulatory non-compliance and becomes a criminal threat to consumers.
Similarly, if unsafe food causes injury, illness, or death, punishment under the Food Safety and Standards Act can become extremely severe.
This distinction explains the core idea behind the reform. Technical lapses are increasingly being treated through compliance mechanisms, while conduct that threatens public health continues to attract strict legal consequences. The real success of this reform will depend on balanced implementation. If regulators become too soft, public health may suffer. But if authorities continue treating every small mistake like a crime, the purpose of the reform will fail completely.
- Step-by-Step Procedure Under the New Law
One of the biggest practical changes after the Jan Vishwas Act is that many minor FSSAI violations are now handled through an administrative process instead of immediate criminal prosecution. Earlier, business owners often feared that even small compliance mistakes could drag them into lengthy court cases. The present enforcement approach increasingly focuses on correction, reply, and adjudication before harsher action is considered in minor cases.[21]
In simple terms, the process usually works like this:
- Inspection by Food Safety Officer
The process usually starts with an inspection by a Food Safety Officer (FSO). This may happen:
- during routine checks,
- after a consumer complaint,
- during festival seasons,
- or as part of special enforcement drives.[22]
The officer may check:
- hygiene conditions,
- food storage,
- expiry dates,
- labelling,
- FSSAI licence display,
- packaging,
- and documentation records.
If the officer finds a minor violation, they normally record the issue and prepare an inspection report.
- Notice Issued to the Business
Instead of immediately filing a criminal case, authorities generally issue a notice for minor non-compliance. This may be an Improvement Notice or Show Cause Notice under the Food Safety and Standards Act.[23]
For example:
- incorrect label format,
- missing batch details,
- incomplete records,
- or procedural lapses.
The notice usually explains:
- what violation was found,
- which rule was violated,
- and how much time is given to respond or correct the issue.
This stage is extremely important. Ignoring the notice often makes matters worse.
- Reply by the Food Business Owner
The business owner gets an opportunity to submit a written explanation.
A proper reply may include:
- clarification of facts,
- proof that the mistake has been corrected,
- updated labels or licences,
- invoices or records,
- and photographs showing compliance improvements.
In many cases, businesses that cooperate honestly receive more reasonable treatment than those who avoid responding.
- Adjudication and Hearing
Minor violations are often handled by an Adjudicating Officer instead of a criminal court.[24]
The officer examines:
- inspection reports,
- documents submitted,
- seriousness of the violation,
- previous history,
- and whether public health was actually affected.
If the issue is technical or procedural, the officer may impose a monetary penalty instead of recommending criminal prosecution.
This is one of the biggest practical shifts under the Jan Vishwas framework.
- Penalty Order
After hearing both sides, the authority passes an order.
Possible outcomes include:
- warning,
- direction to improve compliance,
- monetary penalty,
- temporary restrictions,
- or in serious cases, recommendation for stronger legal action.
For many minor violations, the matter ends after payment of the fine and correction of the defect.
- Appeal Against the Order
If a business owner believes the penalty is unfair, an appeal can usually be filed before the designated appellate authority within the prescribed period.[25]
This gives businesses a legal opportunity to challenge excessive penalties or incorrect findings without immediately entering a full criminal trial system.
Practical Reality for Small Businesses
In practice, most small food businesses fear notices not because of the fine itself, but because they do not understand the process. The new system works better when businesses:
- maintain basic records,
- cooperate during inspections,
- correct mistakes quickly,
- and respond professionally to notices.
The Jan Vishwas reforms attempt to make food law enforcement less intimidating for honest businesses while still allowing strict action against genuinely unsafe food practices.
- Impact on Stakeholders
The Jan Vishwas Act has changed the relationship between food businesses, regulators, and consumers. Supporters see it as a practical reform that reduces unnecessary criminalisation, while critics worry that softer penalties may weaken food safety enforcement. The real impact depends on how fairly and strictly the law is implemented on the ground.
Impact on Food Businesses
Small restaurants, bakeries, sweet shops, cloud kitchens, and local food vendors are among the biggest beneficiaries of the reform. Earlier, even technical mistakes such as labelling errors, delayed licence renewal, or incomplete documentation could create fear of criminal prosecution.[26]
The reform is intended to provide greater relief by shifting many minor violations towards notices and monetary penalties instead of immediate criminal prosecution. This reduces legal costs, court visits, and fear of imprisonment for honest mistakes.
For example, if a small café incorrectly prints nutritional information on packaging, the issue is now more likely to be resolved through correction and fines rather than immediate criminal proceedings.
The reform also supports “Ease of Doing Business” by encouraging compliance without excessive intimidation.[27] However, businesses cannot become careless. Serious violations involving unsafe food, adulteration, or fraud still attract strict punishment.
Impact on Consumers
For consumers, the reform creates both hope and concern.
On one hand, the government argues that regulators can now focus more on dangerous food practices instead of spending time on minor paperwork violations. This may improve enforcement against real adulteration and unsafe products.[28]
On the other hand, some consumer groups fear that reducing criminal penalties for minor offences may weaken deterrence. If enforcement becomes too lenient, businesses may start treating penalties as a routine business expense instead of taking compliance seriously.
Ultimately, consumers still depend heavily on strong inspections, honest enforcement, and effective testing systems to ensure food safety.
Impact on Government and Regulators
The reform also benefits the government by reducing unnecessary litigation and pressure on courts. Minor matters can now be resolved through adjudication and administrative penalties instead of lengthy criminal trials.[29]
At the same time, regulators now carry greater responsibility. They must distinguish carefully between honest mistakes and conduct that genuinely threatens public health.
In practice, the success of this model will depend on whether authorities can distinguish genuine mistakes from careless or dishonest conduct. Whether this balance succeeds will depend largely on implementation, transparency, and consistent enforcement across India.
- Challenges and Criticism
Although the Jan Vishwas Act has been welcomed by many businesses, it has also raised important concerns about food safety enforcement in India.
One major question is whether monetary penalties alone are enough to discourage violations. Critics argue that some large companies may simply treat fines as a business expense instead of seriously improving compliance standards.[30] The fear is that reducing criminal consequences for minor offences could weaken deterrence over time.
Another concern is implementation. India’s food regulation system already struggles with uneven enforcement across different states. Some states have better infrastructure, trained officers, and stronger monitoring systems, while others face staff shortages and weak inspection mechanisms.[31] Because of this, the law may not be applied uniformly across the country.
Concerns about corruption have also been raised. Since many matters are now handled through adjudication and administrative penalties instead of courts, there is a risk that discretionary powers could be misused if transparency and accountability are weak.
Training is another challenge. Food Safety Officers must now distinguish carefully between:
- harmless technical mistakes,
- repeated negligence,
- and genuinely dangerous conduct.
Without proper training, either excessive leniency or unnecessary harassment may continue despite the reform.
At the same time, supporters argue that over-criminalisation was itself a serious problem. Minor paperwork mistakes should not consume court time that could instead be used against actual adulteration and unsafe food practices.[32]
On paper, the reform looks practical. But in reality, its success will depend on how honestly and consistently local authorities implement it.
- Practical Compliance Checklist for Food Businesses
The Jan Vishwas Act may have reduced criminal fear for many minor violations, but compliance with food safety rules is still extremely important. A small mistake may now lead to a fine instead of jail, but repeated negligence can still create serious legal trouble.
For restaurants, bakeries, cloud kitchens, sweet shops, street vendors, and packaged food sellers, the safest approach is simple: maintain basic compliance regularly instead of fixing problems after receiving a notice.
Here is a practical checklist every food business should follow:
Basic FSSAI Compliance Checklist
✔ Renew FSSAI licence or registration before expiry.
✔ Display the FSSAI licence number clearly at the business premises.
✔ Use proper labels with manufacturing date, expiry date, batch number, and ingredient details.
✔ Avoid false claims such as “100% pure” or “chemical free” unless legally accurate.
✔ Maintain invoices, supplier details, and purchase records properly.
✔ Keep kitchens, storage areas, utensils, and refrigerators hygienic.
✔ Train staff on handwashing, food handling, and cleanliness practices.
✔ Conduct periodic pest control and cleaning checks.
✔ Store raw and cooked food separately to avoid contamination.
✔ Keep records of customer complaints and corrective action taken.
✔ Cooperate politely during inspections by Food Safety Officers.
✔ Never ignore an FSSAI notice or improvement order.
✔ Respond to notices immediately with proper documents and proof of correction.
Many businesses make the mistake of treating compliance as a one-time formality. In reality, food safety is an ongoing responsibility. Most FSSAI problems arise not from serious adulteration, but from poor record maintenance, careless labelling, and failure to respond properly during inspections.
A simple monthly self-check can prevent major legal and financial problems later.
- Conclusion
The Jan Vishwas Act marks an important shift in India’s regulatory approach towards food businesses. Instead of treating every technical mistake as a criminal offence, the law now focuses more on correction, compliance, and practical enforcement. For small restaurants, bakeries, street vendors, and food startups, this reduces unnecessary fear and encourages easier business operations.
At the same time, food businesses remain legally responsible for maintaining proper safety standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
In simple words, the Jan Vishwas Act does not mean food businesses can relax. It means India now prefers compliance before punishment, but serious threats to public health still invite criminal law.
The real success of this reform will depend on honest implementation, responsible businesses, aware consumers, and consistent enforcement across states. Safe food ultimately depends not only on laws, but also on everyday compliance, transparency, and public trust.
[1] Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Annual Report 2022–23 18–21 (Gov’t of India 2023).
[2] Bibek Debroy & Laveesh Bhandari, Corruption in India: The DNA and the RNA 142–45 (Konark Publishers 2011).
[3] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[4] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 59–67, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[5] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[6] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Cabinet Approves Jan Vishwas Bill to Enhance Ease of Doing Business, https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1895949 (last visited May 18, 2026).
[7] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Jan Vishwas: Decriminalising Minor Offences for Trust-Based Governance 3–7 (2023).
[8] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 48, 50, 51, 52, 59, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[9] Avtar Singh, Introduction to Administrative Law 214–16 (8th ed., LexisNexis 2021).
[10] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[11] Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, regs. 2.2.2–2.2.7, Gazette of India (India).
[12] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 59, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[13] G. P. Tripathi, Administrative Law 301–04 (Central Law Publications 2020).
[14] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 48, 59, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[15] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[16] Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, regs. 2.1.1–2.1.14, Gazette of India (India)
[17] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 31, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[18] Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Food Safety Compliance System Guidance Manual 24–31 (Gov’t of India 2022).
[19] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 52–53, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[20] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 59, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[21] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[22] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 38–42, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[23] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 32, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[24] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 68, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[25] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, § 70, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[26] Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, §§ 31, 52, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India).
[27] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Jan Vishwas: Decriminalising Minor Offences for Trust-Based Governance 5–8 (2023).
[28] Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Annual Report 2022–23 34–39 (Gov’t of India 2023).
[29] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
[30] Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Annual Report 2022–23 41–45 (Gov’t of India 2023).
[31] Jean Drèze & Amartya Sen, An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions 154–58 (Princeton Univ. Press 2013).
[32] Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, No. 18 of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).
