Authored By: Mansi Yadav
Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU-CPAS)
Introduction
India’s food market, especially branded dairy like milk, ghee, and paneer, faces adulteration, mislabeling, improper packaging, and deceptive advertising, compromising consumer safety and quality. Consumers increasingly face the unfortunate reality of adulterated, mislabelled, improperly packaged, and fraudulently advertised food products across Indian markets, raising serious concerns regarding the safety, origin, quality, and authenticity of what they consume. The health consequences resulting from the consumption of misrepresented products are not limited to India but are evident globally; however, in India, such practices have a disproportionately severe impact on public health, consumer rights, and the legal liability of those responsible [1]. This article overviews the legal framework, enforcement challenges, and proposes reforms to enhance manufacturer accountability.
Understanding Misrepresentation and Its Legal Significance
Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement of fact that induces another party to enter into a contract which they would not have entered into had the representation not been made.[2]
In India, misrepresentation is covered under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, ss 18-19. 2 Primary remedy for misrepresentation is rescission of the contract, with damages available in limited circumstances, particularly where the misrepresentation amounts to fraud.
However, with respect to food products, once a consumer enters the marketplace and buys food items, misrepresentation transcends the realm of private contract and assumes the character of a public wrong and affects millions of unsuspecting consumers.
Misrepresentation is also recognized as being part of marketplace law and addressed in statute law under consumer protection laws. Misrepresentation is also defined as a form of unfair trade practice, and may expose the maker to civil and in some cases criminal liability.
Lastly, misrepresentation negatively affects consumer independence, damages brand loyalty, and has the potential to cause serious bodily injury to consumers due to food safety violations.
Statutory Framework: Consumer Protection, Food Safety, and Misrepresentation
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The primary legal protection against misleading practices available to consumers in India is the Consumer Protection Act (2019)[3]. The CPA provides a definition of an unfair trade practice that includes:
- False or misleading representations about the quality, quantity, composition, price, or grade of goods;
- False advertising claims; and
- Representations that pass off goods as those of another party.
Section 2(47) of the Act defines “unfair trade practice[4],” while Section 2(28) defines “misleading advertisement[5],” enabling affected consumers to seek remedies before consumer commissions.
- Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act)[6] is at the core of food controls in India and is administered by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The Act combines many laws regarding food and is intended to provide safe and nutritious food for human consumption.
The regulations governing the FSS Act include:
- An adulterated food item cannot be sold.
- The labelling provided on the packaging of a food item cannot be different from what is put inside.
- Claims made regarding the food item must be proven to be true, and comply with the prescribed standards.
For example, under FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, ‘pure ghee’ must meet compositional standards without adulterants like vegetable oils. Dairy like paneer/milk must comply with fat/SNF norms; e.g., 2025 FSSAI seizure of 500kg adulterated ghee Rajkot (500kg adulterated ghee). Penalties: fines to ₹10 lakh, licence suspension, life imprisonment if death results (ss 59–67). [7]
- Legal Metrology Act, 2009
Weights, measures, and labeling of packaged goods are governed by the Legal Metrology Act[8]. The law guarantees that a person’s declaration of quantity (i.e., net weight) is accurate and can be verified as such. Any incorrect declaration of quantity, including under-filling or false weight representation, constitutes a violation of the Legal Metrology Act and attracts monetary penalties and, in serious cases, criminal liability. The CPA, FSS Act, and Legal Metrology Act are the “Three Pillars” of consumer protection with regard to food products: quality, safety and honest representation.
Corporate Misrepresentation vs. Informal Market Deception
There are differences between large businesses producing omnipresent brands that misrepresent products and informal market producers who likewise produce unbranded products with little or no effective oversight.
For example, misrepresentation by large corporations occurs in subtle ways. They continue to mislead consumers primarily through misleading brand images, exaggerated health benefits, vague or misleading labels, and packaging that is visually misleading. E.g., 83% paneer samples failing norms due to undeclared additives (FSSAI 2025). [9]Corporations rely upon consumers’ psychology to undermine educated consumer choice without necessarily posing an immediate or visible threat to consumer health.
On the other hand, when a consumer purchases “unbranded” dairy from an informal vendor in their neighborhood, they frequently receive dairy that may originate from unknown or unregulated sources, which is then watered down by vendors and adulterated with starch, soap (detergent), or industrial fat – common in 70% of unbranded milk – to increase the volume or extend the shelf life[10]. Not only does the vendor misrepresent the product, but they also expose consumers to significant risks to their health.
In the context of enforcing accountability, Branded manufacturers face FSSAI licensing; unbranded evade oversight, enabling repeat violations.
Case Laws and Enforcement Trends
As consumer protections against deceptive marketing have become more established in India, courts increasingly treat misleading claims as statutory violations. In Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd [11], courts held exaggerated health claims as unfair trade practices.
Despite this framework, enforcement remains inconsistent; e.g., Rajasthan HC (2024) directed state measures against adulteration (e.g., detergent in milk) amid FSSAI resource gaps, with lengthy prosecution delays and inadequate deterrents.[12]
Public Health and Consumer Protection: A Constitutional Imperative
Misrepresentation or adulteration of food can lead to an economic loss; however, there are also serious implications that go beyond just that. Unsafe food can also threaten public health, create nutritional deficiencies, and infringe on an individual’s basic right to be healthy and alive. The Supreme Court of India has determined that right to life as referred to in Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes safe food (Centre for PIL v UOI (2003); Para Pharmaceuticals (2023)). [13] Therefore, if the government fails to stop misrepresentation of food products, it may be subject to constitutional review.
Also, dignity and autonomy of consumers (a key component of human rights) are violated when the consumers do not have confidence in the labels on the products they buy.
Regulatory Gaps and Enforcement Challenges
Fake and adulterated food products continue to be a major issue because of many different systemic obstacles:
(a) Fragmentation of Enforcement
Different agencies (FSSAI, state food authorities, police) are responsible for enforcing food law; however, enforcement is often fragmented and doesn’t happen in a coordinated manner. This creates a situation of duplication, delay in enforcement, and enforcement gaps.
(b) Lack of Resources
Required activities (testing, conducting inspections and surveillance) drain current resources. Many local authorities do not have enough resources to frequently inspect for violations, allowing offenders to operate with relative impunity. [14]
(c) Lack of Oversight of Informal Sector
The informal sector is mainly unregulated. Small vendors are hard to monitor; also, many times it’s rare for law enforcement authorities to pursue legal action against vendors due to logistical and evidentiary barriers.
(d) Low Consumer Awareness
Low consumer awareness about their rights and food standards leads to decreased reporting of violations. Many consumers do not know how to lodge complaints or how to properly read and interpret food labels.
Recommendations and the Way Forward
Improving legal accountability requires reform across multiple platforms.
- Harmonizing Enforcement Mechanisms
Greater communication between the FSSAI, consumer commissions, and legal metrology authorities via a centralized digital system will serve to increase the effectiveness of surveillance activities, reporting systems, and enforcing follow-up actions.
- Increasing Penalties and Deterrents
Increasing the amount of fines imposed by these agencies, mandating that companies recall products with safety issues, and requiring offenders to have their names published can help deter repeat offences. Furthermore, if a corporate officer is found guilty of intentionally deceiving consumers about the safety of a product, they might also face personal responsibility for their actions, not just the company.
- Building Capacity of Informal Sector Regulation
Localised offices of the food safety authority should be tasked with ensuring compliance by informal sector participants through periodic visits to the marketplace, increasing public awareness of safe food practices, and establishing mobile testing units.
- Building Capacity of Consumer Education
Public education campaigns designed to promote consumers’ knowledge of reading food labels, understanding industry-wide standards for safe products, and providing information about how to file a consumer complaint will help consumers take action against suppliers who misrepresent their products.
- Supporting Scientific Validation
Investing in rapid testing technology and establishing laboratory accreditation for testing laboratories will allow for more rapid identification of safety issues and for easier prosecution of offenders.
Conclusion
Misrepresentation in the food sector is not merely a commercial wrong but a serious legal and public health violation, implicating consumer rights, corporate ethics, and constitutional guarantees. In India, the legislative framework offers a number of strong tools to deal with misleading and/or adulterated food items available for sale; however, their continued presence on shelves indicates a failure of enforcement efforts, a lack of compliance with regulations as well as insufficient levels of consumer education about these issues.
Legal accountability demands integrated statutory enforcement, judicial vigilance, public participation, and administrative reform for safe, ethical food markets.
Reference(S):
[1] FSSAI, Annual Report 2023–24.
[2] Indian Contract Act 1872, ss 18–19.
[3] Consumer Protection Act 2019.
[4] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(47).
[5] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(28).
[6] The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
[7] Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, ss 59–67.
[8] Legal Metrology Act 2009.
[9] FSSAI Paneer Testing Report (2025, 83% failure rate).
[10] FSSAI Nationwide Drive (2025).
[11] Horlicks Ltd v Zydus Wellness Products Ltd (2020) SCC OnLine Del 1159.
[12] Rajasthan HC, In Re: Public Health & Food Adulteration (2024 SCC OnLine Raj)
[13] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[14] FSSAI Data (Punjab: 47% paneer/milk non-compliant).
