The Bombay High Court dismissed a 98 percent [1] hygiene rating given to the Mantralaya secretariat canteen by the Food and Drug Administration.
The ruling challenges the credibility of official food safety inspections in Maharashtra. By questioning the accuracy of the regulator's assessment, the court is signaling a demand for greater transparency and accountability in public health oversight.
The court said the FDA's high score was "laughable" [1], suggesting that the rating did not reflect the actual conditions of the facility. The Mantralaya serves as the state secretariat in Mumbai, where government officials and staff consume meals daily.
To verify the true state of the canteen, the court ordered a fresh inspection. This new assessment will be conducted by a team of four [2] lawyers to ensure an impartial review of the premises.
The FDA had previously asserted that the canteen met nearly all hygiene standards. However, the court said this high percentage was unrealistic given the operational environment of the secretariat. The judicial intervention follows concerns that regulatory bodies may be providing inflated scores to government-run facilities.
The team of lawyers will evaluate the kitchen and dining areas to determine if the FDA's initial report was accurate or misleading. This move shifts the oversight of the inspection from a government agency to a court-appointed legal team.
“The court described the FDA's high score as "laughable".”
This development highlights a significant trust gap between the judiciary and state regulatory agencies in India. When a court replaces a technical regulator's findings with a team of lawyers, it suggests that the legal system views the administrative process as fundamentally compromised or performative rather than evidence-based.
