Synopsis : The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Dabur by staying a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) order that restricted the company's use of labels such as '100% Pure', '100% Natural', '100% Purity Guaranteed' and '100% Organic' on food products. The court observed that Dabur appeared to have a prima facie case and should have been given an opportunity to respond before the regulatory action was taken.
The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the August 3 order issued by FSSAI against Dabur, temporarily preventing the regulator's restrictions on the company's use of '100%' claims across several food products. Justice Amit Mahajan granted interim relief to the company and ordered that the FSSAI directive remain stayed until the next hearing, scheduled for August 24.
The case stems from a regulatory directive that prohibited Dabur from using various '100%' claims on food products. The regulator had raised concerns that expressions such as '100% Pure' and '100% Natural' could be ambiguous, difficult to verify and potentially misleading for consumers.
The restrictions covered a range of Dabur products, including honey, cow ghee, apple cider vinegar, virgin coconut oil, sesame oil, coconut water and coconut milk. The action potentially affected products that had been marketed using such descriptions for several years.
Dabur challenged the FSSAI order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the regulator had taken the action without providing the company with an adequate opportunity to explain its position. The company contended that it should have received a show-cause or improvement notice before such a significant restriction was imposed.
Appearing for Dabur, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi argued that the company had been using similar descriptions on its products for decades. He questioned FSSAI's authority to impose what Dabur described as a blanket restriction on '100%' claims without following the appropriate regulatory process.
Dabur's legal team also argued that the FSSAI action violated the principles of natural justice, as the company was allegedly not given a proper opportunity to be heard before the order was issued.
The company referred to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, arguing that the regulator is required to seek clarification from a food business operator and consider its response before taking adverse action.
Dabur further challenged the FSSAI order on the grounds that it was non-speaking, meaning the directive did not sufficiently explain why specific '100%' descriptions were considered misleading or in violation of the applicable regulations.
According to Dabur, claims such as '100% Pure' for single-ingredient products like honey can be factually accurate and should not automatically be considered misleading simply because they contain the expression '100%'.
The company also highlighted the potential financial impact of complying with the order. Dabur claimed that it could be forced to withdraw, destroy or repackage products worth more than Rs 150 crore if the restrictions were immediately enforced.
The company argued that such an outcome would be disproportionate, particularly because the affected products were already in the market and had been sold under the disputed descriptions for an extended period.
Dabur also raised concerns about reputational damage following the publication of the FSSAI order on social media. The company argued that the public communication could create an impression among consumers that its products were substandard or had failed regulatory requirements, even though the underlying dispute concerned the interpretation and use of specific product claims.
Dabur further claimed that similar '100%' terminology is used across multiple food categories by several major companies. In its petition, the company argued that it had been singled out despite the widespread use of such claims within the industry.
FSSAI, however, defended its action before the court. Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit, appearing for the regulator, argued that an improvement notice had been issued to Dabur and opposed the company's request for interim protection.
The FSSAI counsel also referred to an earlier dispute involving Dabur's use of '100%' claims for fruit juice products, noting that the High Court had previously declined to provide interim relief to the company in that matter.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court concluded that Dabur had established a prima facie case warranting interim relief. The court therefore stayed the operation of the August 3 FSSAI order until the matter is heard further.
The court's decision does not represent a final ruling on whether Dabur's '100%' claims comply with food advertising and labelling regulations. Instead, the interim order temporarily protects the company while the court examines the legal and regulatory issues surrounding the FSSAI directive.
The dispute could have broader implications for India's packaged food and consumer goods industry, where terms such as '100% natural', '100% pure', 'organic' and 'purity guaranteed' are commonly used as marketing claims. A final judicial decision could influence how food companies communicate product attributes and how regulators evaluate potentially misleading claims.
For Dabur, the immediate relief allows the company to avoid the disruption that could have resulted from rapidly withdrawing or repackaging affected products. However, the larger regulatory question remains unresolved and will be examined during subsequent hearings.
The matter is scheduled to return before the Delhi High Court on August 24, when the court is expected to consider further arguments from Dabur and FSSAI. The outcome could provide greater clarity on the extent of regulatory powers available to FSSAI when it comes to product labelling, advertising claims and consumer protection.
Disclaimer : This content is intended solely for informational and educational purposes. It should not be considered financial, investment, business or legal advice. Readers and investors should conduct their own research and refer to official company announcements before making any financial or investment decisions.
.jpg)