Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) empowers the Central Government to direct State Governments in implementing food safety measures, ensuring regulatory consistency across India. In light of the Madras High Court's recent ruling in Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors. (MANU/TN/5849/2024), which urged the Central Government to address the growing consumption of tobacco products among children, particularly "Cool Lip," Section 86 gains significance as a means to combat emerging public health threats. This article explores the scope, purpose, and practical impact of Section 86, underscoring its role in fostering effective and uniform food safety practices nationwide.

Introduction
The FSSA was enacted to establish a consolidated and effective legal framework for food safety in India. The Act grants authority to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and empowers the Central Government to ensure compliance with food safety standards. Section 86, a critical component of this framework, grants the Central Government the power to issue directions to State Governments for executing specific provisions of the Act. This authority allows the Central Government to address significant food safety concerns across states, enhancing the uniform application of safety standards.

The recent decision by the Madras High Court in Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors. has brought new focus to Section 86. The court emphasized the need for Central intervention in response to the rising popularity of tobacco products like Cool Lip among children. The case highlights how Section 86 can be effectively invoked to address issues impacting public health at the national level.

Legal Framework of Section 86 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

Section 86 states:
"The Central Government may give such directions to any State Government as it may deem necessary for carrying out all or any of the provisions of this Act, and the State Government shall comply with such directions."

• Discretionary Power of the Central Government: Section 86 empowers the Central Government to issue directions to any State Government to ensure the FSSA's objectives are achieved. This authority includes the flexibility to address varied food safety issues as they arise, as seen in the recent case involving tobacco products.
   
• Binding Compliance for State Governments: The language "shall comply" establishes that State Governments must adhere to directions from the Central Government. This mandatory compliance reinforces uniform application of the FSSA across states, particularly in areas where states may have differing levels of regulatory enforcement.
   
• Broad Scope of Directions: Directions may address "all or any" aspects of the FSSA, offering the Central Government latitude to tailor guidance based on evolving food safety challenges. This adaptability is crucial when dealing with newly emerging products, such as Cool Lip, that appeal to children and pose a potential health risk.
   
• Case Analysis: Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors. In Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors., dated 30 October 2024, the Madras High Court examined the concerning increase in children's consumption of tobacco products, specifically a product called "Cool Lip." The court noted that this product, a type of flavored tobacco, has gained considerable popularity among younger demographics due to its taste, easy availability, and appealing packaging. The widespread use of such products, particularly among children, raises significant public health concerns and demands a coordinated response. The court urged the Central Government to leverage its authority under Section 86 to direct State Governments to take immediate preventive measures. It called for the Central Government to issue guidelines to control the sale, marketing, and availability of Cool Lip and similar products. The court underscored that the unique appeal of these products to children warranted urgent intervention, as unrestricted access and advertising could lead to long-term health consequences.
   
• Significance of Section 86 in Addressing Public Health Concerns
  • Ensuring Uniform Standards Across States: Section 86 allows the Central Government to ensure consistent food safety practices across all states. In cases like Aunestraja, where products like Cool Lip exploit regulatory gaps, Central directions can provide states with clear guidelines to prevent differential standards that may otherwise be exploited by manufacturers.
  • Swift Response to Emerging Threats: The broad scope of Section 86 enables the Central Government to address novel food safety challenges efficiently. Products like Cool Lip demonstrate the need for a centralized response to emerging trends that impact public health, particularly among vulnerable populations.
  • Empowering States with Resources and Support: Section 86 enables the Central Government to offer practical guidance to states, which may lack the expertise or resources to address specific food safety challenges. With a uniform directive, the Central Government ensures that each state can act effectively within the FSSA framework.
     
• Procedures under Section 86 for Implementing Central Directions
  • Issuance of Directions by the Central Government: The Central Government, upon identifying a food safety concern (as highlighted by cases like Aunestraja), issues detailed guidelines to State Governments. These guidelines may include measures for regulation, public awareness campaigns, or restrictions on harmful products.
  • State Compliance and Action: Upon receiving the directions, State Governments are required to implement the guidelines within their jurisdictions. Compliance may involve adopting new regulations, increasing inspection efforts, or enforcing restrictions on targeted products.
  • Monitoring and Review: The FSSAI and Central Government monitor state-level compliance, ensuring that the measures achieve the intended public health outcomes. In cases of non-compliance, the Central Government may intervene further to address any shortcomings in enforcement.
  • Further Recourse: If issues persist or if the directives are ineffective, the Central Government may reissue directions or implement stricter controls to mitigate ongoing risks.
     
• Implications of Section 86 in the Context of Emerging Products like Cool Lip The Madras High Court's emphasis on Section 86 in Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors. underlines the importance of preemptive regulatory action. With products like Cool Lip posing a health risk to children, the court's recommendation to invoke Section 86 reflects the judicial perspective on protecting vulnerable populations from harmful products. In similar cases, the Central Government may consider enacting specific guidelines under Section 86, such as:
  • Restricting Advertising and Sale: Limiting the promotion and sale of products like Cool Lip to prevent marketing tactics aimed at children.
  • Increasing Penalties for Violations: Enhancing penalties for non-compliance to deter manufacturers from targeting underage consumers.
  • Public Awareness Campaigns: Launching campaigns to educate parents, schools, and communities about the risks associated with such products.

Conclusion:
Section 86 of the FSSA empowers the Central Government to maintain a unified approach to food safety and address public health risks effectively. The Madras High Court's observations in Aunestraja vs. The State & Ors. underscore the provision's relevance in responding to contemporary challenges, particularly the need to regulate products that exploit youth-oriented marketing.

Through Section 86, the Central Government can direct states to implement coordinated responses, safeguarding public health and promoting uniform standards across the country. The case exemplifies how Section 86 serves not only as a regulatory tool but also as a means of upholding the FSSA's commitment to consumer protection and health.