Karnataka HC quashes criminal case against HUL CEO in food safety row, cites lack of corporate prosecution
Delivering the verdict on July 3, Justice JM Khazi held that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, an individual officer cannot be prosecuted unless the company is first made a party to the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) CEO Rohit Jawa, in a case alleging pesticide contamination in Horlicks biscuits, on grounds that the company itself was not arraigned as an accused.
Delivering the verdict on July 3, Justice JM Khazi held that under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, an individual officer cannot be prosecuted unless the company is first made a party to the case. Citing Section 66 of the FSS Act, the Court ruled that the presence of the company is a prerequisite to hold any of its officers vicariously liable.
“Admittedly, in the present case, the company is not arraigned as an accused and therefore, the petitioner who is sole accused cannot be proceeded against,” the order stated.
The case stemmed from a 2023 complaint by a BBMP Food Safety Officer, who claimed that a sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from a Bengaluru supermarket contained chlorpyrifos levels exceeding permissible limits under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.
The prosecution, however, named only Jawa as the accused, bypassing HUL entirely. Jawa’s legal team, led by advocate Ahaan Mohan, argued that this violated settled legal standards, and that applicable safety norms referred to raw ingredients, not finished processed foods like biscuits.
The High Court concurred, noting that the trial court had taken cognisance in a mechanical manner without adequate reasoning and ignored established precedent in similar cases involving HUL, PepsiCo and Reckitt Benckiser.
“The presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable,” the Court reiterated, underlining that vicarious liability cannot be invoked in isolation.
While quashing the proceedings against Jawa, the Court left the door open for further action, granting the BBMP liberty to refile the complaint, this time naming Hindustan Unilever Ltd as an accused if deemed appropriate.
