- within Corporate/Commercial Law, Environment, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Media & Information and Law Firm industries
On 7 August 2026, the Delhi High Court stayed an order of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) prohibiting Dabur India Limited from selling certain food products carrying claims such as “100% Pure”, “100% Natural” and “100% Organic”. Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan (Delhi High Court) held that the prohibition ought not to have been passed without an opportunity of hearing. That order captures the season. In recent weeks, the regulator has intensified its enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the courts have begun to ask how far it may go.
Where the Authority Comes From
FSSAI is a creature of statute, and its reach is best understood from its origin. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 received assent on 23 August 2006 and consolidated eight scattered instruments, chiefly the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Fruit Products Order, 1955 and the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, all repealed by Section 97 and the Second Schedule. Section 4 establishes the Authority; Section 16 sets out its duties, including the power to specify standards and to regulate labelling and claims; and Section 92 empowers it to frame regulations, which must be laid before Parliament. Section 89 gives the Act overriding effect over every other food related law.
What It Can Actually Do
The operative provisions sit in Chapter IV. Section 23 governs packaging and labelling; Section 24 prohibits misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice, casting the burden of proving scientific justification for any guarantee of efficacy on the claimant; Section 26 fixes operator obligations; and Section 31 makes licensing mandatory. Enforcement is deliberately decentralised, running through the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 30 and the Food Safety Officer under Section 38, who may sample, seize and issue improvement notices under Section 32, with emergency prohibition powers under Section 34. Penalties are civil, adjudicated under Section 68, and extend to five lakh rupees for sub-standard food, three lakh for misbranded food and ten lakh for misleading advertisement under Sections 51 to 53. Appeals lie to the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal under Section 70 and then to the High Court under Section 71(6).
The “Energy Drink” That Is Not a Category
On 1 July 2026, FSSAI issued misbranding notices to six beverage companies, covering Red Bull, PepsiCo's Adrenaline Rush Energy Drink, Sting Energy Drink, Monster Energy, Hell Energy and Reliance's Campa Energy. The notices are based on a relatively straightforward regulatory position. FSSAI's concern is that no separate standard has been notified for an “Energy Drink” as a product category. Instead, sub regulation 2.10.6 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 prescribes standards for caffeinated beverages, including a total caffeine content of not less than 145 mg and not more than 300 mg per litre. FSSAI has also clarified that the Food Category System “is not intended for product naming or labelling purposes”, and has taken the position that functional claims such as “vitalises body and mind” or “aid in general weakness” are impermissible.
Accordingly, FSSAI gave the companies 90 days to remove the term “Energy Drink” from their product labels, packaging and promotional material. The compliance period is expected to end on or about 29 September 2026. The industry sought a more consultative and risk based approach, with the Indian Beverage Association making a representation for prior consultation on 6 July 2026. FSSAI, however, maintained its position following discussions with the industry. PepsiCo was among the first to respond, beginning to remove the word “energy” from the packaging of Sting on 4 August 2026.
Restaurants, Outlets and Court Canteens
In parallel, FSSAI and the State Food Safety Authorities have stepped up inspections of private restaurants, food outlets and branded establishments, focusing on hygiene, licensing, storage and other food safety requirements. The enforcement drive soon raised a broader question: whether the same standards were being applied to establishments run by government and semi government institutions. On 29 July 2026, the Bombay High Court sought details of inspections carried out at such establishments and directed the State to ensure that the ongoing drive was not confined to private eateries. The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration subsequently inspected four canteens on the High Court premises, as well as canteens at Mantralaya and Vidhan Bhavan. The High Court canteens were found to have certain deficiencies, while the Court subsequently scrutinised the FDA's inspection reports concerning the government canteens and emphasised the need for uniform and impartial enforcement. The episode served as a useful reminder that food safety requirements apply to food businesses irrespective of the institution or establishment in which they operate.
The Arithmetic of “100%”
Absolute claims have been contested since the directive of 3 June 2024 removing “100% fruit juice” from reconstituted juices and the advisory of 28 May 2025 discontinuing “100%” generally, the expression being nowhere defined and therefore ambiguous. The anchor is Regulation 4(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, under which claims must be truthful, unambiguous and capable of scientific substantiation; Regulation 9 with Schedule V, which conditions “natural”, “fresh” and “pure”; and Regulation 10, which prohibits certain claims outright. The order of 3 August 2026 against Dabur additionally invoked the Food Safety and Standards (Organic Foods) Regulations, 2017, flagging the Jaivik Bharat logo without valid organic certification. The stay does not finally determine whether the use of “100%” claims is lawful. It does, however, bring the procedural requirements surrounding regulatory prohibition into sharp focus.
Rum Flavour in Rum
The regulatory scrutiny has also extended to alcoholic beverages, although the underlying issue is again one of product identity and labelling. Between 29 June and 2 August 2026, FSSAI took action against selected rum and whisky products, including variants of McDowell's No. 1 Rum, Antiquity Blue, Royal Challenge, Bagpiper Deluxe and Old Monk, in relation to the use of artificial or nature identical flavours and certain age related representations. FSSAI's position is that a product cannot be presented as a standardised spirit where its characteristic taste or aroma is being recreated through practices that do not conform to the applicable standards. United Spirits has challenged the action before the Bombay High Court.
What Comes Next
Three issues now stand out from this recent enforcement activity. The first is regulatory policy. Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling remains under consideration, despite the draft amendment issued in September 2022. On 10 February 2026, the Supreme Court, in 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, expressed dissatisfaction with the progress made by FSSAI and sought a further response on the proposed framework for warnings relating to foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. In July 2026, a Parliamentary Standing Committee similarly called on FSSAI to finalise the framework within a defined timeframe.
The second is procedural fairness. The Dabur proceedings are significant not simply because of the products involved, but because the Delhi High Court’s intervention has brought the question of procedure into focus. The Court’s 7 August 2026 order staying the prohibition has put the manner in which adverse regulatory action is taken under renewed scrutiny. The case therefore raises a practical question for regulators and businesses alike: how should urgent food safety enforcement be balanced against the procedural safeguards that ordinarily accompany adverse regulatory action?
The third, and perhaps the broader, question concerns the boundary between enforcement and rule making. FSSAI has an important statutory mandate to protect consumers and to ensure that food placed on the market is safe and properly represented. At the same time, businesses must be able to understand from the applicable legislation and regulations what they may lawfully manufacture, label and sell. Where an enforcement action depends on a new interpretation of an existing label or product category, the line between applying the law and changing its practical meaning can become difficult to draw.
These developments therefore point to a broader shift in the way food regulation is being enforced in India. For businesses, the lesson is not simply to ask whether a product is safe. It is also to ask whether the product, its formulation, its label, its claims and the basis on which the regulator proposes to restrict it are each supported by the applicable legal framework.
As FSSAI’s recent actions continue to test the boundaries of food labelling and enforcement, one question remains open: where should the line be drawn between protecting the consumer and changing the rules by which the market operates?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
