Jan Vishwas Act 2026: Centre decriminalises minor drug, cosmetic and food safety violations
Synopsis
The Centre has quietly redrawn India's food and drug enforcement map — shifting minor and procedural violations out of the criminal courts and into an administrative penalty system. The Jan Vishwas Act 2026 changes are the most structurally significant update to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Food Safety Act in years, introducing dedicated adjudicating authorities while keeping hard penalties intact for adulteration and public health risks.
Key Takeaways
The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 reforms were operationalised on 26 June , amending both the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 .
Section 29 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act — carrying a penalty of up to ₹1 lakh for using analyst reports in advertising — has been omitted.
Minor labelling and quality violations for low-risk cosmetics now attract administrative penalties instead of criminal proceedings; adulteration offences remain fully criminalised.
Imprisonment for interference with seized food items has been cut from six months to three months .
Obstruction of a Food Safety Officer has been removed from the Food Safety Act, as it is already covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) .
New Adjudicating Authorities and an Appeal Mechanism have been introduced for transparent disposal of administrative contraventions.
The Centre has operationalised sweeping regulatory reforms under the Jan Vishwas Act, 2026, amending provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, effective Friday, 26 June. The Health Ministry confirmed in an official statement that the changes aim to reduce the compliance burden on businesses, shift minor infractions to an administrative penalty framework, and embed proportionate enforcement — without diluting safeguards against serious public health threats.
What Changes Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
One of the more notable omissions is Section 29 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which previously prescribed a penalty of up to ₹1 lakh for using a government analyst's report in advertising any drug or cosmetic. That provision has now been removed entirely.
Violations linked to the manufacture or sale of low-risk cosmetics — such as minor labelling deficiencies, errors, or failure to meet non-critical quality parameters — have been brought under an administrative penalty system rather than criminal proceedings. Critically, offences involving spurious or adulterated cosmetics, which carry direct risks to consumer safety, continue to attract stringent penal provisions under the Act.
Violations under Section 28A, which primarily cover procedural requirements such as maintenance of records and submission of information, have also been converted into administrative penalties.
New Adjudicating Authorities and Appeal Mechanism
To ensure the reformed framework functions effectively, the amendments introduce provisions for the appointment of Adjudicating Authorities alongside a formal Appeal Mechanism. According to the Health Ministry statement, this is intended to enable timely and transparent disposal of cases involving administrative contraventions — a structural addition that distinguishes this round of reform from earlier, piecemeal amendments.
Key Shifts Under the Food Safety Act
Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the imposition of court fines for false complaints against Food Safety Officers has been converted into an administrative penalty — removing the courts from what the government characterises as a procedural dispute.
The punishment for interfering with seized items has been rationalised: the term of imprisonment has been reduced from six months to three months. Meanwhile, the provision criminalising obstruction or resistance of a Food Safety Officer has been omitted altogether, on the grounds that such conduct is already covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), thus eliminating legal duplication.
The Broader Regulatory Intent
The Centre frames the Jan Vishwas Act reforms as a pivot toward 'trust-based governance' — a model that distinguishes between technical or procedural non-compliances and serious public health offences. This comes amid a broader push to improve India's ease-of-doing-business rankings, where regulatory complexity in the pharmaceutical and food sectors has historically been flagged by industry bodies as a friction point.
Notably, this is not the first attempt to rationalise India's food and drug laws — but the introduction of a dedicated adjudication and appeals architecture marks a structural step beyond earlier amendments that simply revised penalty amounts. Whether the new framework meaningfully reduces litigation timelines will depend on how quickly Adjudicating Authorities are constituted and operationalised.
Point of View
Staffed adjudication layer, administrative penalties risk becoming neither a deterrent nor a resolution mechanism. India has a long history of announcing reformed penalty frameworks that then stall at the implementation stage. The real test will come when the first wave of cases reaches these new authorities — and whether their decisions are insulated from the same delays that made criminal proceedings unattractive in the first place.
NationPress
26 Jun 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Jan Vishwas Act, 2026?
The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 is a central government legislation that decriminalises minor and technical violations across multiple regulatory laws, replacing criminal penalties with administrative ones. In the context of health regulation, it amends the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to reduce compliance burden on businesses while preserving strict penalties for serious public health offences.
Which drug and cosmetic offences have been decriminalised?
Minor labelling deficiencies, errors, and non-critical quality failures for low-risk cosmetics have been shifted to administrative penalties. Section 29 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act — which penalised the use of government analyst reports in advertising — has been omitted entirely. Offences involving spurious or adulterated cosmetics remain fully criminalised.
What changes have been made to the Food Safety and Standards Act?
Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, false complaints against Food Safety Officers will now attract administrative penalties instead of court fines. Imprisonment for interference with seized items has been reduced from six months to three months, and the provision on obstructing a Food Safety Officer has been removed as it is already covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Who will handle cases under the new administrative penalty framework?
The amendments introduce Adjudicating Authorities and a formal Appeal Mechanism specifically for cases involving administrative contraventions. The Health Ministry has stated these are designed to ensure timely and transparent disposal of such cases.
Do the reforms weaken consumer safety protections?
According to the Health Ministry statement, they do not. Offences involving spurious or adulterated cosmetics and serious food safety violations continue to attract stringent criminal penalties. The reforms are designed to apply only to technical, procedural, or low-risk infractions, not to conduct that poses a direct risk to public health.
