‘Don’t kill a mosquito with a sword’; court warns of ‘stinging orders’, contempt action and jail as FDA withdraws orders against Cipla

The Bombay High Court has delivered a scathing rebuke to the Maharashtra Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), questioning whether the regulator’s aggressive enforcement drive under Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe is crossing the line into administrative overreach.

In two separate cases involving pharmaceutical major Cipla and five eateries at the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) premises, the court pulled up the FDA over alleged undue haste, procedural lapses and failure to follow the principles of natural justice. Following the court’s intervention, the FDA withdrew both its orders.

The sharpest exchange came in the MCA case, where the FDA had suspended the licences of five restaurants at the association's Bandra-Kurla Complex premises. A fresh inspection later found the eateries to be 88 per cent compliant withfood safety requirements.

Despite this, the regulator had initially maintained its action, prompting the court to come down heavily on the department.

“How many times should we try to convince and balance equities so that the department does not feel discouraged? Why do we say don't kill a mosquito with a sword? Do you feel you are a Lord and you can do anything?”the bench asked.

The court said the FDA had acted with “undue haste”and taken a “pedantic instead of pragmatic view”, despite earlier directions to properly apply its mind. The bench warned that it was tired of repeatedly reprimanding the department and said it was time for “stinging orders”.

It also warned of contempt action against the officials, saying they would have to convince the court or “go to jail.”The FDA subsequently agreed to withdraw its suspension order, allowing the five eateries to reopen.

In a separate and equally significant case, the High Court pulled up the FDA over its decision to cancel the drug-sale licences of a Cipla Pharma & Life Sciences facility at Wadki in Pune.

The court said the FDA was doing a “laudable and appreciative job”, but added that “now you are going overboard.”

The bench said the department had acted in a “high-handed”manner and questioned the procedure adopted to cancel Cipla’s licence. The court particularly flagged the manner in which Cipla's representative was called for a hearing on August 26, a public holiday declared by the Maharashtra government.

“This is not the first time this is happening. You have wronged, and now you have to resolve the issue,”the court observed, holding that the procedure adopted by the FDA was against the principles of natural justice.

Following the court's criticism, the FDA withdrew its cancellation order, effectively restoring Cipla’s licence.

The twin setbacks come amid Mundhe’s high-profile enforcement drive against alleged food and drug safety violations across Maharashtra.

The latest proceedings do not amount to the Bombay High Court striking down the FDA’s wider crackdown. But the court’s repeated and unusually strong observations send a clear message: tough enforcement cannot mean unchecked enforcement.

For the Maharashtra FDA, the question is no longer just how many establishments it can inspect, raid or shut down. The High Court is now scrutinising how those powers are being exercised— and whether the drive for strict action is being matched by due process, proportionality and the rule of law.

As the court put it in its warning to the regulator: even a crackdown has limits — and the law applies to the enforcer too.