Discuss the constitutional and governance dimensions of replacing criminal sanctions with administrative penalties in economic regulation in India.

Q. Discuss the constitutional and governance dimensions of replacing criminal sanctions with administrative penalties in economic regulation in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 — amending 784 provisions across Central Acts administered by 23 Ministries, of which 717 stand decriminalised [3] — marks a shift from a punitive to a trust-based regulatory philosophy. Replacing imprisonment for technical lapses with graded monetary penalties raises questions of both constitutional propriety and administrative capacity.

Constitutional dimensions - Proportionality: criminal liability for procedural lapses such as defective labelling is disproportionate; civil penalties calibrate sanction to gravity, aligning penal law with reasonableness under Article 14. - Natural justice: the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 now provides adjudicating authorities appointed by the Centre and States, with show-cause notice, personal hearing and appeal [2] — procedural safeguards essential when the executive both prosecutes and decides. - Avoiding duplication: obstruction of a Food Safety Officer is omitted from the FSSA, 2006, being already covered by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [2], rationalising India's penal architecture. - Federal balance: drugs and food safety fall in the Concurrent List; State FDAs and food safety commissioners must absorb the new adjudicatory role.

Governance dimensions - Ease of doing business: relieves pharma, cosmetics and food MSMEs of criminal exposure for record-keeping lapses, reducing court pendency [1]. - Curbing inspector raj: a progressive ladder of advisory → warning → penalty limits arbitrary prosecution [3]. - Sustained deterrence: penalties rise automatically by 10% every three years [3], preventing erosion by inflation. - Consumer safeguards retained: spurious drugs, adulterated cosmetics and unsafe food remain criminal offences [1] — decriminalisation is bounded, not blanket. - Risk: under-resourced or industry-captured adjudicating authorities could dilute deterrence.

Decriminalisation thus substitutes certainty of penalty for severity of punishment — constitutionally sounder and administratively lighter. Its success will rest on trained adjudicators, transparent orders and periodic regulatory impact assessment, so that ease of doing business advances alongside the right to health under Article 21.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Government Operationalises Jan Vishwas Act Reforms in Health Sector — PIB, MoHFW, 26 June 2026 — operationalisation, compliance relief, retention of criminal liability for spurious/adulterated products 2. Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026: Rationalizing Compliance and Decriminalizing Minor Offences in the Health Sector — PIB, April 2026 — adjudicating authority, show-cause/hearing/appeal, BNS subsumption of obstruction offence 3. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — 784 provisions/23 Ministries, 717 decriminalised, 10% triennial penalty escalation, advisory–warning–penalty ladder