Karnataka High Court quashes case against HUL CEO over biscuit contamination

New Delhi: The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Rohit Jawa, Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever (HUL), in connection with allegations of pesticide contamination in Horlicks biscuits sold in Bengaluru, according to a report.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed in June 2023 by a BBMP Food Safety Officer, who alleged that a sample of Horlicks biscuits collected from Downtown Super Market in Bengaluru contained chlorpyrifos levels beyond permissible limits, in violation of the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.

Justice JM Khazi, in a July 3 order, held that the case against HUL CEO Rohit Jawa could not proceed as the company was not named as an accused. The trial court had earlier issued summons to Jawa under Sections 51 and 59 of the FSS Act, citing his responsibility for the company’s operations.

Appearing for Jawa, advocate Ahaan Mohan argued that the proceedings were legally flawed, as Section 66 of the FSS Act requires the company to be prosecuted first. He also said the safety standards cited apply to raw ingredients, not the final product.

The High Court accepted these arguments and noted that there was no allegation indicating Jawa’s direct involvement or knowledge of the alleged contamination. Citing precedents including Hindustan Unilever v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Pepsico India Holdings. Food Inspector, and Reckitt Benckiser (India) State of Bihar, the Court reaffirmed that a company officer cannot be held vicariously liable unless the company itself is arraigned.

“The presence of the company is necessary in order to hold such person liable. For this reason, the criminal proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed,” the Court stated, referring to Section 66 of the FSS Act.

While setting aside the proceedings, the Court left the door open for future legal action. “Liberty is reserved to the complainant to file a fresh complaint against the accused, by also arraigning the company as additional accused, if so advised,” it said.