The Centre has operationalised key health sector reforms under the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, decriminalising several minor and technical violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to promote ease of doing business.
The amendments replace criminal proceedings for specified procedural and compliance-related violations with administrative penalties, while retaining stringent provisions against offences that pose risks to public health and consumer safety.
One of the key reforms is the omission of Section 29 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which prescribed a penalty of up to Rs 1 lakh for using reports of the Central Drugs Laboratory or a Government Analyst to advertise any drug or cosmetic.
The amendments also replace imprisonment with financial penalties for minor violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. As a result, procedural lapses and certain offences in the case of cosmetics (other than spurious or adulterated products) will not require court intervention and can instead be addressed through a civil penalty framework.
Low-risk violations involving cosmetics, such as minor quality deficiencies or labelling errors, have also been brought under the administrative penalty regime. However, offences involving spurious or adulterated cosmetics, which have a direct bearing on consumer safety, will continue to attract strict penal action.
The Government has also converted violations under Section 28A, which primarily relate to procedural and compliance requirements such as maintenance of records and submission of information, into administrative penalties.
To facilitate implementation of the new framework, provisions for the appointment of Adjudicating Authorities and an appeal mechanism have been introduced to ensure timely and transparent disposal of such cases.
Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, provisions relating to the imposition of court fines in cases involving false complaints against Food Safety Officers have been converted into an administrative penalty mechanism.
The punishment for interfering with seized items has been rationalised, with the term of imprisonment reduced from six months to three months.
Further, the provision relating to obstructing or resisting a Food Safety Officer has been omitted, as such offences are already covered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), thereby avoiding duplication in the legal framework.
