Delhi HC closes criminal cases linked to 2015 Maggi controversy

More than a decade after the controversy over alleged excessive lead content in Maggi, the Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Nestlé India officials and distributors, noting that subsequent scientific testing found the product’s lead content to be within the permissible limit.

Justice Madhu Jain, in a judgment pronounced on Thursday, said continuing the prosecutions would amount to an abuse of the process of law as the very scientific foundation of the cases had substantially eroded following fresh tests conducted by the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) under the Supreme Court’s supervision.

The court consequently quashed the criminal complaints, the summoning orders issued in 2015 and 2016, and all consequential proceedings against the retailers and other persons in the supply chain of Nestle.

The cases arose from samples of Maggi noodles collected by Delhi food safety officials during the nationwide sampling drive in May 2015. Food analysts had reported that the lead content in the tastemaker exceeded the permissible limit of 2.5 parts per million (ppm), while one complaint also alleged misbranding over the “no added MSG” declaration. Based on these findings, complaints were filed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, leading to criminal prosecution against retailers, suppliers and representatives of Nestle India.

‘Permissible limits’

The petitioners argued that the prosecutions could not survive because the Bombay High Court had in 2015 set aside the nationwide ban on Maggi noodles after finding that the laboratories whose reports formed the basis of the ban lacked the statutory accreditation under the Food Safety and Standards Act. They also relied on subsequent testing by accredited laboratories and the CFTRI, which reportedly found the lead content to be within permissible limits.2

Justice Jain said, “This court is of the considered view that permitting the present prosecutions to continue would serve no useful purpose.”