The petitioner has challenged Mundhe’s June 12 order, arguing that directing officials to invoke MCOCA in every such case goes beyond the FDA’s legal powers.
An order issued by Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe directing officials to invoke provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) in cases involving gutka, tobacco and other banned food products has come under challenge before the Bombay High Court.
A criminal writ petition has questioned Mundhe’s June 12 order, arguing that a blanket direction to invoke MCOCA in such cases goes beyond the FDA’s legal authority.
The Bombay High Court has not stayed the order. However, it has emphasised that any action under MCOCA must comply strictly with Section 23 of the Act, which lays down mandatory procedural safeguards.
The court has issued notice to the Maharashtra government and given it time to submit a detailed response. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on September 4.
What Does Section 23 of MCOCA Require?
Section 23 establishes specific conditions that must be met before authorities can initiate or investigate an organised crime case under MCOCA.
Under Section 23(1)(a), police cannot register information or an FIR relating to an organised crime without prior permission from a police officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) or above.
Section 23(1)(b) further provides that an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) cannot investigate an offence under MCOCA.
There is another layer of approval under Section 23(2). A special court cannot take cognisance of an offence under MCOCA without prior approval from an officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADG) or above.
These requirements were central to the High Court’s observations in the challenge to Mundhe’s order.
FDA Cannot Independently Conduct MCOCA Investigations
The court also clarified the respective roles of the FDA and police authorities.
FDA officials may participate in an investigation under MCOCA when requested by the police. However, they cannot independently investigate the organised-crime law.
The distinction is significant because Mundhe’s order was intended to strengthen action against the illegal manufacture, distribution and smuggling of gutka and other prohibited tobacco products.
The court’s observations do not currently prevent the Maharashtra government from pursuing its broader enforcement campaign. Instead, they underline that individual cases involving MCOCA must follow the statutory approval and investigation procedures prescribed by the law.
Why Is the Order Significant?
Maharashtra has been pursuing stronger action against the illegal trade and distribution of gutka, tobacco products and other banned food items.
The FDA has sought to use MCOCA’s tougher provisions against habitual offenders and organised networks involved in the illegal trade.
The challenge before the Bombay High Court, however, raises a fundamental legal question about the extent to which an administrative authority such as the FDA can direct the use of a specialised anti-organised-crime statute.
For now, Mundhe’s June 12 order remains in force because the court has not granted a stay. But the court’s emphasis on strict compliance with Section 23 means that the use of MCOCA in gutka-related cases will remain subject to the statutory approvals and safeguards prescribed under the Act.
The Maharashtra government’s response, and the High Court’s next hearing on September 4, could provide further clarity on how the FDA’s enforcement powers intersect with MCOCA.
The petition comes amid a wider crackdown by Mundhe’s department on the sale and smuggling of gutka.
NDTV Profit, Photo: AI Generated
