Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe ordered a statewide ban on loose edible oil on August 21, citing adulteration and food safety concerns.
Trader groups opposed the order and warned that the restrictions and penalties could hurt small businesses and low-income consumers.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis intervened on August 24, directing the FDA to frame SOPs instead of enforcing an immediate blanket ban.
A statewide ban on loose edible oil, announced with the threat of seven years in prison, lasted barely three days before Maharashtra's own Chief Minister stepped in to soften it.
Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe's August 21 order banning the sale of loose or unpacked edible oil triggered swift opposition from traders, prompting Devendra Fadnavis to tell his Cabinet on August 24 that the FDA would instead be asked to draft standard operating procedures rather than enforce an outright ban.
What did the FDA's loose oil order actually say?
On August 21, Mundhe issued a 14-point statewide compliance order under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, banning the sale of loose or unpacked edible oil and covering the entire supply chain — oil expeller units, refiners, blenders, packaging units, importers, supermarkets, e-commerce platforms and retail outlets.
He cited FDA sample data from 2025-26 showing that of 1,247 edible oil samples tested statewide, 77 were substandard, 13 unsafe and 15 misbranded, and pointed to specific malpractices uncovered during inspections: unregistered operators, adulteration with cheaper undeclared oils, oil exceeding permitted acid-value and trans-fat limits, unauthorised blending of mustard oil, and the relabelling and repackaging of near-expiry stock.
Mundhe also flagged the reuse of frying oil by hotels as a public health risk and urged consumers directly to buy only packaged oil, warning that violations of the order could draw prosecution and up to seven years in prison.
What objections did traders raise?
The All India Edible Oil Traders' Federation (AIEOTF) strongly opposed the order within days. National president Shankar Thakkar questioned why loose edible oil faced harsher penalties than legally sold products like alcohol and cigarettes, arguing that selling oil was neither a crime nor comparable to terrorism to justify up to a decade in prison and fines of Rs 10 lakh, the Hitavada and fnbnews reported.
The federation also questioned the need for a separate, stringent state order when the national regulator FSSAI already enforces food safety standards, calling this inconsistent with the government's own "Ease of Doing Business" push.
It further argued that a shift to packaged oil would increase reliance on imported tin plates and petroleum-based plastics, adding environmental and foreign-exchange costs, while squeezing traditional traders and low-income consumers who depend on more affordable loose oil in favour of large packaged-oil companies.
How did CM Fadnavis respond?
Speaking during a state Cabinet meeting on August 24, Fadnavis said the FDA would be directed to frame standard operating procedures to prevent adulteration in edible oil "without crippling" the business of traditional oil traders and small retailers.
He described the government's approach as seeking a middle path between strict quality enforcement and protecting livelihoods, effectively setting aside the immediate blanket-ban approach in favour of a compliance framework still to be worked out.
What changed after the CM's intervention?
In practice, the outright prohibition on loose oil sales has been put on hold pending the SOP, shifting the FDA's approach from an immediate ban backed by criminal prosecution to a longer compliance process that traders will need to follow to keep selling loose oil legally.
That buys traders time to adjust rather than forcing an overnight switch to costlier packaged formats, while the government maintains its stated commitment to curbing adulteration through the eventual SOP rather than abandoning enforcement altogether.
Why has the reversal itself sparked controversy?
Mundhe has built a reputation as an unusually aggressive enforcer, leading raids on five-star hotels, restaurants, clubs and quick-commerce operators, suspending licences over hygiene lapses, and pushing seizures and FIRs against banned products like pan masala and gutkha — a track record that has earned him what Scroll described as a large public following even as it has unnerved sections of the food industry.
The Fadnavis government's intervention on loose oil came just days after the Bombay High Court separately rebuked the FDA for going "overboard" in keeping a Pune sweet shop's licence suspended despite 98 per cent compliance on re-inspection, fining the department Rs 5 lakh.
Taken together, the two developments have fed a perception among consumer-safety advocates that political and judicial pressure are combining to blunt a popular anti-adulteration drive, even as trade bodies and some industry voices maintain that Mundhe's methods have been procedurally hasty and disproportionate to the violations found.
The result is a dispute that cuts both ways — traders see the CM's move as a necessary, if slow, correction, while supporters of stricter food safety enforcement see it as the state diluting a public-health mandate under lobbying pressure.
