The Delhi High Court will hear Dabur India’s challenge to the FSSAI’s ban on “100% pure” claims on food products. The case could have far-reaching implications for food labelling, advertising practices and regulatory powers across India’s FMCG sector
A legal battle between Dabur India and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is set to come under the spotlight on Friday, with the Delhi High Court scheduled to hear the company’s challenge against the regulator’s order prohibiting the sale of several food products carrying “100 per cent” purity claims.
The case is being closely watched by the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry, as the court’s observations could influence how food companies market products using terms such as “100 per cent pure”, “100 per cent natural” and “100 per cent organic”.
What is the dispute?
Earlier this week, the FSSAI directed Dabur to stop selling a range of food products marketed with claims including “100 per cent Pure”, “100 per cent Natural”, “100 per cent Organic”, “100 per cent Purity Guaranteed” and “100 per cent Tender Coconut Water”.
The regulator’s prohibition order covered products such as honey, apple cider vinegar, virgin coconut oil, sesame oil, cow ghee, coconut water and coconut milk.
According to the FSSAI, these claims violate the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, as they are ambiguous, cannot be scientifically verified in the manner presented and have the potential to mislead consumers. The regulator also asked Dabur to submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days.
The action follows a broader regulatory crackdown on food labelling and advertising claims, with the FSSAI tightening scrutiny of descriptions that could create unrealistic or unverifiable impressions about a product.
More from BusinessDabur challenges the order
Dabur has moved the Delhi High Court, arguing that the FSSAI’s order was issued without following due process.
The company has contended that it was neither served with a show-cause notice nor given an opportunity to present its case before the prohibition order was issued. It has also questioned whether the regulator has the statutory authority to prohibit the sale of products through such an order.
In its petition, Dabur has described the order as arbitrary, ambiguous and lacking adequate reasoning. The company has further argued that terms such as “100 per cent” are widely used across the food industry and that publishing the prohibition order has caused reputational harm.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench headed by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya on Thursday for urgent listing and is scheduled to be heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Friday.
Industry-wide implications
While the dispute centres on Dabur, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for India’s packaged food industry.
Many food and beverage companies use marketing claims such as “pure”, “natural”, “organic” and similar descriptions to differentiate their products. A judicial endorsement of the FSSAI’s interpretation could prompt companies to review product labels, packaging and advertising campaigns to ensure compliance with the regulator’s advertising rules.
On the other hand, if the court questions the regulator’s approach or the process followed in issuing the prohibition order, it could provide greater clarity on the limits of the FSSAI’s enforcement powers and the standards required before such action is taken.
The case also comes at a time when the regulator has stepped up enforcement against misleading claims across sectors. Recently, the FSSAI issued prohibition orders against certain alcoholic beverage manufacturers over flavour-related labelling issues, signalling a broader push to tighten compliance with food and beverage regulations.
Consumer protection versus commercial speech
At the heart of the dispute lies a broader question: how far can regulators go in restricting marketing claims in the interest of consumer protection?
The FSSAI maintains that claims such as “100 per cent pure” or “100 per cent natural” can mislead consumers if they cannot be objectively substantiated under existing regulations. Dabur, however, argues that businesses must be given a fair opportunity to respond before such restrictions are imposed.
The Delhi High Court’s hearing is unlikely to settle the broader debate immediately. However, its observations could shape future regulatory action and influence how food companies communicate product quality and purity claims in one of the world’s largest consumer markets.
With inputs from agencies.
