Asked in the Lok Sabha about food adulteration, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare gave five years of enforcement by the State/UT Food Safety Authorities: how many samples each tested, how many failed, how many civil cases ended in a penalty and how many criminal cases ended in a conviction.
From 2021-22 to 2025-26 they analysed 8,86,712 samples and found 1,85,780, 21.0%, non-conforming. Civil cases decided with penalty numbered 1,39,507; criminal convictions, 6,203.
One state, four times the rate
In Uttar Pradesh 84,371 of 1,49,776 samples, 56.3%, were found non-conforming. In the rest of India the share was 13.8%. Uttar Pradesh analysed 16.9% of India’s samples and accounts for 45.4% of its failed ones. The share was above half in every one of the five years.
Among states that analysed at least 5,000 samples, the share ranges from 56.3% in Uttar Pradesh to 4.1% in Bihar: the same law and the same standards, 14 times apart. The data cannot say whether food fails more often in one state or whether states choose what to sample differently, for instance by targeting suspect food. The answer gives no sampling method.
Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, answer to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 1093, 24 July 2026, Annexures I to V (FSSAI). 2025-26 is provisional.
Where the convictions are, and are not
Tamil Nadu secured 2,865 of the 6,203 convictions, 46.2%. 15 states and union territories recorded none in five years, though each found non-conforming samples. The largest of them is Telangana: 2,942 non-conforming samples and 942 civil cases decided with penalty, but no conviction. After it come Odisha (1,213 non-conforming), Assam (642 non-conforming), Goa (528 non-conforming), Bihar (453 non-conforming).
A state with no conviction may have found little unsafe food: sub-standard and misbranded food goes to civil adjudication, not to a criminal court. The answer does not say how many samples were unsafe, so it does not let anyone tell the two apart.
Maharashtra, the state the question named, found 6,553 non-conforming samples in five years and recorded 25 convictions.
Adds up, and does not
Every year’s state rows add up exactly to the printed totals. Two rows stand out: Mizoram shows no samples analysed in 2024-25 but 2 found non-conforming, which cannot both be right; and Lakshadweep reports no sample analysed in any of the five years.
Got it right
Enforcement is rising on the ministry’s own figures. Samples analysed went from 1,44,345 in 2021-22 to 2,23,808 in 2025-26, and convictions from 671 to 1,918. Inspections rose from 3,57,072 in 2023-24 to 5,20,566 in 2025-26, and 4,764 licences were cancelled in 2025-26, against 1,679 the year before. The share of samples found non-conforming fell from 22.8% to 17.9%. Tamil Nadu’s record shows what a state can do: it analysed 1,21,371 samples, more than any state but Uttar Pradesh, and secured 2,865 convictions.
Every state and union territory, five years together
| State / UT | Samples analysed | Non-conforming | Share | Civil cases with penalty | Convictions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uttar Pradesh | 1,49,776 | 84,371 | 56.3% | 66,170 | 1,089 |
| Tamil Nadu | 1,21,371 | 20,163 | 16.6% | 11,688 | 2,865 |
| Rajasthan | 73,271 | 18,731 | 25.6% | 11,051 | 78 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 68,932 | 9,406 | 13.6% | 10,263 | 243 |
| Gujarat | 68,356 | 4,437 | 6.5% | 4,617 | 259 |
| Kerala | 54,693 | 7,089 | 13.0% | 3,659 | 713 |
| Jammu and Kashmir | 44,169 | 4,995 | 11.3% | 7,742 | 84 |
| West Bengal | 44,091 | 2,582 | 5.9% | 3,079 | 7 |
| Maharashtra | 38,841 | 6,553 | 16.9% | 4,731 | 25 |
| Karnataka | 37,472 | 1,957 | 5.2% | 922 | 96 |
| Punjab | 32,928 | 5,491 | 16.7% | 3,664 | 148 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 27,118 | 2,262 | 8.3% | 2,129 | 50 |
| Telangana | 20,965 | 2,942 | 14.0% | 942 | 0 |
| Haryana | 16,733 | 4,686 | 28.0% | 3,609 | 278 |
| Delhi | 12,809 | 862 | 6.7% | 261 | 81 |
| Bihar | 11,009 | 453 | 4.1% | 243 | 0 |
| Uttarakhand | 9,794 | 1,458 | 14.9% | 1,520 | 15 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 9,259 | 2,052 | 22.2% | 1,548 | 12 |
| Chhattisgarh | 8,411 | 927 | 11.0% | 638 | 24 |
| Odisha | 7,931 | 1,213 | 15.3% | 126 | 0 |
| Assam | 5,410 | 642 | 11.9% | 5 | 0 |
| Goa | 5,162 | 528 | 10.2% | 53 | 0 |
| Jharkhand | 3,147 | 1,241 | 39.4% | 270 | 16 |
| Andaman and Nicobar Islands | 2,860 | 54 | 1.9% | 63 | 0 |
| Chandigarh | 2,149 | 259 | 12.1% | 361 | 119 |
| Ladakh | 1,841 | 107 | 5.8% | 104 | 0 |
| Meghalaya | 1,378 | 80 | 5.8% | 0 | 0 |
| Manipur | 1,269 | 11 | 0.9% | 4 | 1 |
| Sikkim | 1,248 | 12 | 1.0% | 10 | 0 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 1,183 | 43 | 3.6% | 10 | 0 |
| Nagaland | 835 | 47 | 5.6% | 3 | 0 |
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu | 790 | 10 | 1.3% | 20 | 0 |
| Puducherry | 597 | 86 | 14.4% | 2 | 0 |
| Tripura | 576 | 27 | 4.7% | 0 | 0 |
| Mizoram | 338 | 3 | 0.9% | 0 | 0 |
| Lakshadweep | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 |
| India | 8,86,712 | 1,85,780 | 21.0% | 1,39,507 | 6,203 |
How we did this
- Source: the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s answer to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 1093, answered on 24 July 2026, Annexures I to V. Figures for 2025-26 are provisional.
- Adds up: in each of the five years the state rows sum exactly to the printed totals in all four columns.
- Two numbers: the ministry’s answer to Unstarred Question 1092, the same day, gives the last three years again. Every cell matches.
- The civil column is headed “Decided with penalty” for the last three years and “Convicted with penalty” for 2021-22 and 2022-23; we treat it as the same measure. State names are made consistent across years (“Orissa” is Odisha).
- Download the data: food-safety-enforcement-2021-22-to-2025-26.csv. Our method and labels are on the Data Audit method page.
Questions
What does non-conforming mean?
A sample that failed one or more standards under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, including adulteration. A food can fail as unsafe, sub-standard or misbranded. The answer counts all of them together and does not say how many of each.
Why are there far fewer convictions than failed samples?
The Act deals with failures differently. Sub-standard and misbranded food is dealt with through civil adjudication and a penalty; unsafe food can lead to criminal prosecution. So a failed sample does not always lead to a criminal case, and a conviction in one year may come from a sample taken in an earlier year.
Who enforces food safety law?
Mainly the states. The ministry told Parliament that around 98% of food businesses fall within the jurisdiction of State/UT Food Safety Authorities, so enforcement primarily rests with them; FSSAI's four regional offices also run surveillance drives.
Where does the data come from?
From the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's answer to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question 1093, answered on 24 July 2026, Annexures I to V. Figures for 2025-26 are provisional.
Corrections
No corrections so far. If any figure here is wrong, send the correcting document to editor@oquilia.com and we will correct it and record the change on this page.