NEW DELHI, Sept. 22
A series of raids on restaurants, food outlets, pharmacies and drug businesses across India has drawn attention to a part of regulation that often receives less scrutiny than the rules themselves: whether authorities consistently enforce them.
State Food and Drug Administrations have stepped up action in recent weeks against businesses accused of stocking substandard food or medicines or violating hygiene and safety requirements. The cases have ranged from allegedly fake paneer in Haryana to serious hygiene violations in Maharashtra and suspected counterfeit medicines in Karnataka.
In Gurugram, Haryana, officials raided outlets following complaints involving fake or analogue paneer. In Pune, authorities suspended the food licences of restaurants and shops after inspections found significant food-safety and hygiene violations, including cockroaches and other insects on the premises.
Karnataka’s drug regulator has meanwhile acted against fake-drug rackets, including those involving cancer medicines, and cancelled 24 licences.
The individual cases are different, but collectively they have raised a broader question about India’s regulatory system. The country has extensive rules governing food and pharmaceutical safety. The more difficult issue is whether violations are followed by timely and effective enforcement.
The recent actions fall within a regulatory framework overseen nationally by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for food and the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) for medicines, alongside enforcement by state authorities.
Former regulators argue that inspections, searches and other enforcement measures are necessary when businesses fail to comply with regulatory orders.
R S Sharma, former chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, said regulators must follow through when their directions are ignored.
“The regulators must be on the ball. They must issue alerts. But it cannot be the case that even when regulators issue orders and those orders get flouted, there would not be a follow-through from the regulator,” Sharma said.
That follow-through becomes particularly important in sectors such as food and pharmaceuticals, where regulatory failures can directly affect consumers.
Courts provide another avenue for complaints and enforcement, but Sharma said relying on litigation alone can produce lengthy proceedings that discourage complainants. Regulatory searches and raids can move faster and, where evidence of wrongdoing is found, potentially support subsequent legal proceedings.
A former insurance regulator, who was not identified, made a similar argument, saying businesses that violate laws or fail to comply fully with regulatory requirements should not expect to escape consequences.
Food regulation in India also operates within a wider international framework.
The Codex Alimentarius, or Food Code, is a collection of internationally recognised food standards, guidelines and practices developed to protect consumers and promote fair practices in food trade. Its standards provide an important reference point for national food-safety systems, including India’s.
The Codex system is intended to give consumers greater confidence in the safety and quality of food while providing importing countries with recognised standards against which products can be assessed.
The larger challenge for regulators is ensuring that standards written into law translate into compliance in markets, restaurants, manufacturing facilities and pharmacies.
Former regulators cited in the Business Standard report said enforcement powers outside India’s financial sector have traditionally been more restricted than those available to regulators in some developed markets.
The US Food and Drug Administration, for example, has powers allowing it to inspect overseas facilities producing goods destined for the American market.
The consequences can be substantial when violations are established. Indian generic drug manufacturer Ranbaxy pleaded guilty in the United States in 2013 and agreed to pay $500 million to resolve criminal and civil allegations that included false statements to the US FDA relating to manufacturing practices at Indian facilities.
The comparison illustrates why enforcement matters alongside regulation. Detailed standards have limited effect if businesses conclude that violations are unlikely to produce meaningful consequences.
At the same time, regulatory action must follow established legal procedures. Raids, licence suspensions and other penalties can have serious consequences for businesses and cannot substitute for due process.
Former regulators consulted by Business Standard said the recent enforcement actions had followed established procedures. According to them, businesses had received warnings and opportunities to respond before stronger measures were taken.
Sangeeta Verma, a former member of the Competition Commission of India, said regulators are expected to act through clearly established guidelines and procedures.
She also linked food and drug quality to the broader principle of fair markets, arguing that consumers are entitled to expect products to meet prescribed standards.
“Substandard food items or raw materials for drugs vitiate those expectations of fair standards. So the regulators have acted in the best interests,” Verma said.
Effective enforcement can also place pressure on officials themselves.
Sharma said officers conducting searches and entering the premises of businesses can face physical risks as well as professional consequences, including the possibility of transfers.
“There are physical risks; there are also risks of being transferred out and other issues,” he said, describing diligent enforcement by officials as positive for the economy.
The recent raids do not by themselves establish that India’s regulatory system has undergone a lasting change. Sustained enforcement will depend on whether inspections, testing, penalties and follow-up action continue after the immediate cases have passed from public attention.
The test for regulators is therefore not the visibility of individual raids. It is whether businesses come to expect that food and drug standards will be enforced consistently, violations investigated and regulatory orders followed through.
