Decriminalisation of minor offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is necessary for ease of doing business but risks weakening consumer protection. Analyse.

Q. Decriminalisation of minor offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is necessary for ease of doing business but risks weakening consumer protection. Analyse. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 amends 80 Central Acts to decriminalise or rationalise offences [3], and its health-sector provisions — operationalised by the Health Ministry in June 2026 — replace imprisonment for minor procedural lapses with graded monetary penalties [1]. The statement is largely valid, but the risk is mitigated by design safeguards.

Why decriminalisation is necessary - Proportionality: criminal liability for technical lapses — labelling or record-keeping defects — is disproportionate; cosmetics manufacturing violations now attract a monetary penalty instead of imprisonment [3]. - Compliance burden: pharma, cosmetics and food-processing MSMEs faced prolonged criminal litigation for non-hazardous defaults; graded penalties improve ease of doing business and regulatory efficiency [1]. - Legal rationalisation: duplicative provisions were removed where the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 already applies, e.g. obstruction of a Food Safety Officer [2]. - Sustained deterrence: fines rise automatically by 10% every three years, preventing erosion by inflation [3].

Why the consumer-protection risk is real - Shifting adjudication from courts to administrative authorities can dilute deterrence if these bodies are under-resourced or susceptible to regulatory capture. - Drugs and food safety are Concurrent List subjects enforced by State FDAs and food safety commissioners; uneven State capacity may produce inconsistent enforcement. - Monetary penalties may become a cost of doing business for larger firms, and the boundary between "technical" and substantive violations requires careful administrative interpretation.

Countervailing safeguards - Offences endangering public health — spurious drugs, adulterated cosmetics, unsafe food — remain criminally punishable [1][2]. - Show-cause notice, personal hearing and an appellate mechanism before adjudicating authorities appointed by the Centre and States uphold natural justice [1].

Decriminalisation here is calibrated, not wholesale: it withdraws the criminal law from paperwork defaults while retaining it where consumer safety is at stake. The reform's success will ultimately rest on capacitating State regulators, transparent adjudication and strengthened risk-based inspection — aligning trust-based governance with the citizen's right to safe medicines and food.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Government Operationalises Jan Vishwas Act Reforms in Health Sector — PIB, MoHFW (June 2026) — operationalisation, graded monetary penalties, retention of stringent provisions for public-health offences, adjudication and appellate process 2. Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026: Rationalizing Compliance and Decriminalizing Minor Offences in the Health Sector — PIB (April 2026) — BNS overlap and omission of Food Safety Officer obstruction provision; safeguards for spurious/adulterated products 3. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — 80 Central Acts amended, cosmetics civil penalty, 10% triennial penalty escalation