Food Safety Writ in Bangladesh: Adulteration, BSTI Bans and the Safe Food Act in 2026

Food safety writ in Bangladesh: the 2026 framework

A food safety writ is a petition under Article 102 of the Constitution asking the High Court Division to compel the state's food regulators to act, or to stop them acting unlawfully, where adulterated or unsafe food threatens public health. Since the radioactive milk powder case of 1996, the Division has treated contaminated food as a threat to the right to life, and in 2019 it used that jurisdiction to order 52 substandard products off the shelves and to halt the sale of pasteurised milk from 14 processors. For consumers, rights groups and food businesses alike, these petitions now shape how the Safe Food Act 2013 is enforced in practice.

This guide explains the constitutional basis for these petitions, the statutory regime it enforces, the landmark orders on milk, formalin and substandard products, the remedies the court can and cannot give, and how food businesses caught up in such litigation should respond. It also covers the 2026 licensing regulations that will make registration with the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority mandatory for most food businesses from 1 November 2026.

Summary: The High Court Division reads the right to life in Articles 31 and 32 as including protection from contaminated food, and uses Article 102 to direct the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority, BSTI and consumer regulators to enforce the Safe Food Act 2013. Petitions by rights groups and lawyers, and the court's own suo motu rules, have produced product recalls, testing orders, hotlines and year-round enforcement drives. Food businesses affected by those orders can seek a stay from the Appellate Division, but they must also prepare to prove compliance with laboratory evidence.

Key point: A food safety writ targets the regulator, not the producer. The court directs the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority, BSTI or the consumer rights directorate to perform statutory duties; the criminal liability of manufacturers is still decided by the Pure Food Courts and other forums under the Safe Food Act 2013.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Food safety writ in Bangladesh: the 2026 framework

This jurisdiction sits at the intersection of constitutional law and regulatory enforcement. The petitioner does not usually sue the company that made the adulterated product. Instead, the petition names the ministries and regulators responsible for food control and asks the High Court Division to declare their inaction unlawful and direct them to act. The court's power comes from Article 102(2)(a)(i), which allows it to direct a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic to do what the law requires, and from Article 102(1), which allows it to enforce fundamental rights.

The regulators most often named are the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA), the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI), the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP), and the secretaries of the food, health, agriculture, fisheries and livestock, and commerce ministries. In the 2019 dairy proceedings the respondents also included the Cabinet Secretary and members of the Central Food Safety Management Coordination Committee.[9]

Why a writ rather than a criminal complaint

The Safe Food Act 2013 already provides criminal machinery: complaints to the BFSA, investigation by inspectors and summary trial in designated Pure Food Courts.[2] Those routes punish an individual operator after the event. A writ addresses something different, which is systemic failure: regulators not testing, not publishing results, not recalling products, or not acting on results they already hold. When the problem is a market-wide contaminant such as antibiotics in milk or formalin in fruit, a criminal case against one seller does little. A mandamus directing the regulator to test, recall and report can change conduct across the industry.

The constitutional basis: right to life and the state's duty on food

Article 15 of the Constitution makes it a fundamental responsibility of the state to secure the basic necessities of life, including food, and Article 18 makes raising the level of nutrition and improving public health among its primary duties.[1] Both sit in Part II as fundamental principles of state policy, which Article 8(2) makes non-enforceable in themselves. The bridge to enforceability is the right to life and personal liberty in Articles 31 and 32.

The radioactive milk powder case

In Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Government of Bangladesh (1996) 48 DLR 438, the petitioner, then secretary of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association, challenged the release of imported skimmed milk powder that the Atomic Energy Commission's laboratory had first found to carry radiation above permitted levels.[4] The High Court Division held that the right to life includes the protection of health and normal longevity, that marketing contaminated food threatens that right, and that while the Article 18 duty is not itself enforceable, the right to life that embraces health protection is.[4]

The relief was practical rather than dramatic. The court directed customs to draw more than one sample from multi-container consignments, routed testing through the designated radiation laboratory, and called for a more comprehensive sampling system.[4] That pattern of systemic, procedural directions still characterises the jurisdiction three decades later.

Articles 15, 18, 31 and 32 in later orders

The High Court Division returned to the same constitutional base in 2019. In the pasteurised milk proceedings, the bench said the respondents bore a constitutional obligation under Articles 15, 18, 31 and 32 to ensure safe food and had failed to discharge it.[10] Petitioners should plead all four articles together: the policy articles define the content of the duty, and the rights articles make it enforceable.

The statutory regime a food safety writ enforces

Most of the court's directions translate into an instruction to apply existing law. Knowing that law precisely is what separates a focused petition from a general complaint about food quality.

The Safe Food Act 2013 and the BFSA

The Safe Food Act 2013 replaced the Pure Food Ordinance 1959, whose minor penalties had long been criticised as ineffective.[1] The Act came into force on 1 February 2015 and the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority was formed the same year.[2] The Authority regulates and monitors the manufacture, import, processing, storage, distribution and sale of food, and coordinates other agencies through the Central Food Safety Management Coordination Committee.[1]

The Act prohibits the use of poisonous or radioactive substances, heavy metals above permitted limits, unauthorised additives, growth promoters, pesticide and drug residues and harmful microbes, as well as the production and sale of adulterated or substandard food.[1] Offences appear in sections 23 to 44, with penalties set out in a schedule; offences are cognisable and non-bailable under section 60, and penalties double for repeat offences.[2]

Pure Food Courts, complaints and civil compensation

Section 64 allows the government, in consultation with the Supreme Court, to designate first-class and metropolitan magistrate courts as Pure Food Courts, and 71 courts were empowered in this way.[2] Under section 66, any person may lodge a written complaint with the BFSA chairman, an authorised officer or an inspector, and may also file a case directly within 30 days. Section 65 requires summary trial, section 62 gives a complainant a quarter of any fine imposed, and section 76 preserves a separate civil claim for compensation for injury to health.[2]

These provisions matter to a petition in two ways. First, they define the duties a petitioner asks the court to enforce. Second, they supply the respondents' standard objection that an adequate alternative remedy exists. A well-drafted petition explains why individual complaints cannot cure a systemic failure.

Other laws in play

Adulteration remains an offence under sections 272 to 276 of the Penal Code 1860, although those provisions never controlled the problem effectively.[1] BSTI's certification marks regime determines which products may be sold under mandatory standards, and its test results triggered the 2019 recall. The consumer rights directorate enforces the Consumer Rights Protection Act 2009. Our guide to BSTI certification in Bangladesh explains the standard mark and CM licence system that sits behind most product challenges.

Landmark food safety writ orders

The modern case law was largely built in a single year. In 2019 three separate benches dealt with substandard packaged foods, contaminated dairy and chemicals in fruit.

The 52 substandard products order (2019)

BSTI tested 406 samples of 27 food types and on 2 May 2019 published results showing 52 products from different manufacturers to be substandard or adulterated, including mustard oil, soybean oil, chips, drinking water, vermicelli, turmeric and chilli powder, iodised salt and ghee.[5] Lawyer Shihab Uddin Khan, for the Conscious Consumers Society, filed a writ petition. On 12 May 2019 a bench of Justice Sheikh Hassan Arif and Justice Razik-Al-Jalil directed the BFSA and the DNCRP to remove all 52 products from the market, halt their production and sale until they passed BSTI retests, and take legal action against those responsible.[5] [6]

The court went further in its observations. It urged the government to wage a war on food adulteration comparable to its anti-narcotics drive, said enforcement should run all year rather than only in Ramadan, and acknowledged in the same breath that the court is not a regulator and cannot set government priorities.[6] That combination of strong exhortation and acknowledged institutional limits is typical of the jurisdiction.

Contempt and compliance

Compliance was slow. On 23 May 2019 the bench issued a contempt rule against the BFSA chairman and called him to appear. At the June hearing he apologised and was discharged on condition of future compliance, after the court had described the Authority's earlier efforts as eyewash.[7] BSTI reported retesting 42 of the items, finding 26 safe and cancelling the licences of 16. The court also warned that anyone found engaged in underhand dealings in food testing would be sent directly to jail.[7]

Hotlines and year-round drives

In the same proceedings the court directed the BFSA, DNCRP and BSTI to run anti-adulteration drives throughout the year and report periodically. In August 2019 it ordered the DNCRP to launch a 24-hour complaints hotline within three months through outsourcing, and directed the finance and commerce ministries to release the funds.[8] These continuing mandamus orders keep a petition alive for months, with the court supervising implementation through compliance reports.

The dairy cases: antibiotics and lead in milk

The milk litigation shows both the reach of a food safety writ and its limits once an order collides with commercial reality.

The February 2019 survey order

After national newspapers reported a survey finding pesticides, antibiotics and bacteria in raw cow milk, a bench of Justice Nazrul Islam Talukder and Justice KM Hafizul Alam on 11 February 2019 ordered a nationwide survey of milk, dairy products and fodder for bacteria, antibiotics, lead and pesticides, with a report within 15 days.[9] It also issued a rule asking why the respondents' inaction on dairy adulteration should not be declared illegal and why those responsible should not be brought to justice.[9]

The 14-brand halt and the Appellate Division stay

Separately, a bench of Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed and Justice Md Iqbal Kabir Lytton, acting on a suo motu rule issued 14 months earlier, considered BSTI-commissioned test reports from three laboratories that found oxytetracycline, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin and lead in pasteurised milk. On 28 July 2019 it ordered a five-week halt to the production, distribution and sale of pasteurised milk from 14 companies, including Milk Vita, Aarong Dairy, Igloo and Pran.[10]

The industry response was immediate. Processors warned that around 200,000 farmers depended on daily collections, and BSTI's own counsel argued the agency lacked legal authority to test for antibiotics and lead.[10] Within two days the Appellate Division's chamber judge, Justice Md Nuruzzaman, allowed Milk Vita to continue and then stayed the ban for Akij's Farm Fresh and Pran Dairy, directing the companies to file regular petitions within five weeks.[11] For affected businesses the lesson is clear: an interim halt can be stayed quickly, but only with credible evidence and a properly filed leave petition.

Fruit, formalin and seasonal chemical abuse

Chemical ripening and preservation of fruit and fish is a recurring subject of public interest litigation. In 2019 a bench of Justice FRM Nazmul Ahasan and Justice KM Kamrul Kader, hearing a public interest petition argued by Manzill Murshid, directed law enforcers led by a magistrate to stop chemical use in Rajshahi mango orchards, ordered the RAB chief, the Inspector General of Police and BSTI to form a monitoring team for fruit and wholesale markets, and later directed strict action against those using harmful chemicals after expressing dissatisfaction with BSTI's mango testing report.[12]

These orders illustrate a pattern. The court sets up monitoring structures, demands reports from named officials and tests the quality of the regulator's own evidence. It does not itself determine which fruit is contaminated. Where testing methods are disputed, as with field formalin detectors, traders and producers have also gone to court to challenge the reliability of the evidence used against them.

Who can bring a food safety writ

Article 102 requires a "person aggrieved", but the Supreme Court has long read that phrase broadly for public wrongs affecting an indeterminate class. Food contamination is the paradigm case: every consumer is affected and none is uniquely harmed. Our analysis of public interest litigation in Bangladesh explains how standing works for such petitions.

Consumer groups, lawyers and rights organisations

Most petitions are filed by registered consumer or human rights organisations or by Supreme Court advocates acting in the public interest, as in the 2019 Conscious Consumers Society petition.[5] A credible petitioner shows genuine public interest, has no commercial motive, and brings the documentary basis for the claim: published test results, survey findings or official reports.

The court acting on its own motion

The High Court Division also issues suo motu rules on adulteration after press reports. The 2018 milk rule and the 2019 rule on dairy products and cattle feed, which drew on a government report, are examples.[1] [10] Once a rule is issued, interveners and affected companies may seek to be heard.

Food businesses as petitioners

A food business can itself be a person aggrieved. A manufacturer whose licence is cancelled without a hearing, whose product is banned on the basis of a flawed test, or who is penalised outside statutory powers can file a writ of certiorari challenging the regulator's decision. The usual grounds are want of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, reliance on an untested or unaccredited laboratory, and failure to follow the statutory sampling procedure.

What the court can order

Remedies in this jurisdiction are flexible but bounded. The court can direct, supervise and declare; it does not try offences or set standards itself.

Typical directions

• Testing and surveys: nationwide surveys or laboratory testing by named institutions within fixed deadlines.[9]
• Withdrawal and halts: removal of products that failed mandatory tests and suspension of production pending retest.[5]
• Enforcement structures: monitoring teams, year-round drives and consumer hotlines.[8] [12]
• Compliance reporting: affidavits from regulators on steps taken, backed by contempt powers.[7]
• Declarations: rules asking why inaction should not be declared unlawful, made absolute at final hearing.[9]

The limits

The court has said in terms that it is not a regulatory authority.[6] It will not normally fix scientific thresholds, choose between competing laboratory methods without expert evidence, or decide individual criminal liability. Broad interim halts affecting an entire supply chain are also vulnerable on appeal, as the milk stay showed.[11] Petitioners should ask for targeted, evidence-based relief that a regulator can realistically deliver and the court can supervise.

Step-by-step: filing or responding to a food safety writ

Whether you are a petitioner or an affected business, the process follows the ordinary writ sequence set out in our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh, with some food-specific steps.

Swipe or scroll →

Two procedural points recur. First, serve a demand for justice on the regulator before filing, so that inaction can be shown. Second, for affected companies, move quickly: the window between an interim halt and serious commercial loss is often days, not weeks.

Food safety writ versus other remedies

The writ is one of several tools. The table compares the main routes. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

In practice the routes often run together. A writ forces systemic testing; the resulting reports support Pure Food Court prosecutions and consumer complaints; and individuals harmed by contaminated food pursue compensation under section 76 or in tort. Our product liability guide covers the civil claims side.

What food businesses should do in 2026

The most important current development is not a judgment but a regulation. The Safe Food (Registration and Licence) Regulations 2026, gazetted on 16 July 2026, require food businesses to apply for BFSA registration or licences from 1 November 2026. Sixteen conventional categories, from roadside stalls and small restaurants to importers and large processors, need registration, while four licence types apply to businesses, premises, manufactured and imported products, and special or so-called superfood products.[3]

Registration will give future petitioners and the court a clearer map of who is producing what, and failure to register will be easy to prove. Any food safety writ filed after November 2026 is likely to ask the court to direct enforcement against unregistered operators. Businesses should register early, maintain batch-level test records from accredited laboratories, and keep a response plan for sudden recalls or testing orders. TRW's food and beverage practice advises on licensing and recall planning, and our constitutional and writ litigation practice acts for petitioners and affected companies. For the broader health dimension, see our companion piece on the right to health writ.

Frequently asked questions

What is a food safety writ in Bangladesh?

It is a writ petition under Article 102 asking the High Court Division to direct food regulators such as the BFSA, BSTI and the consumer rights directorate to enforce food safety law, or to quash unlawful regulatory action, where unsafe food threatens the right to life under Articles 31 and 32.[4]

Is the right to safe food enforceable in court?

Indirectly, yes. Articles 15 and 18 are not enforceable on their own, but the High Court Division has held that the enforceable right to life includes protection of health, and contaminated food threatens that right.[1] [4]

Who can file a food safety writ?

Consumer and rights organisations or public-spirited lawyers can file in the public interest, as the Conscious Consumers Society did in 2019. The court may also act on its own motion, and an affected food business can challenge regulatory decisions against it.[5]

What did the High Court order about the 52 BSTI products?

On 12 May 2019 it directed the BFSA and DNCRP to remove the 52 products that failed BSTI tests, stop their production and sale until they passed retests, and take action against those responsible.[5]

Was the 2019 milk ban enforced?

Only briefly. The High Court Division ordered a five-week halt for 14 processors on 28 July 2019, but the Appellate Division's chamber judge stayed it for Milk Vita, Farm Fresh and Pran within two days.[10] [11]

Can the court punish food adulterators directly in a writ?

Generally no. The writ court directs regulators and can punish contempt, but criminal liability under the Safe Food Act 2013 is decided by designated Pure Food Courts after complaint and investigation.[2]

How do I complain about adulterated food without going to the High Court?

Under section 66 of the Safe Food Act 2013 you can complain in writing to the BFSA chairman, an authorised officer or an inspector, or file a case directly in a Pure Food Court within 30 days.[2]

Can I claim compensation for illness from contaminated food?

Yes. Section 76 of the Safe Food Act 2013 preserves a civil claim for compensation for injury to health alongside any criminal case.[2]

What can a food company do if a writ order bans its product?

It can seek to be heard by the High Court Division, request retesting by an accredited laboratory and, if needed, apply to the Appellate Division for a stay, as several dairy processors did in 2019.[11]

Do food businesses need BFSA registration in 2026?

Yes. Under the Safe Food (Registration and Licence) Regulations 2026, food businesses must apply for registration or the relevant licence from 1 November 2026.[3]