Delhi HC stays FSSAI order against Dabur's '100 per cent' product claims

The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the operation of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of Indias FSSAI August 3 order directing FMCG major Dabur India Ltd to immediately stop the sale of several food products carrying claims such as 100 Pure 100 Natural 100 Purity Guaranteed and 100 Organic observing prima facie that such an order ought not to have been passed without first hearing the companyJustice Amit Mahajan while issuing notice on Daburs writ petition stayed the impugned order till the next date of hearing and directed the respondents to file their replyThe Court noted that the petition challenges the August 3 prohibitory order directing an immediate halt to the sale of the products specified therein Recording Daburs submissions the Court observed that the company has been selling the products under the same labels for several decades and had contended without prejudice to its rights that the Designated Officer lacked the authority to issue such a prohibitory order in the manner adopted The Court further recorded the companys contention that the order had been passed without following the principles of natural justice or issuing any showcause notice It also noted Daburs argument that even an emergency prohibition requires prior notice to the affected party and that the present order was concededly not one issued in an emergencyConsidering the arguments made this Court is of the prima facie opinion that an order of such nature ought not to have been passed without hearing them first the Court observed while staying the operation of the order till the next hearingSenior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for Dabur argued that the company had been issued no show cause no hearing before the regulator prohibited the sale of its products merely because they carried 100 claims He submitted that the impugned action was based solely on the use of the expression 100Appearing for the Centre Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit opposed the plea submitting that an improvement notice had been issued to Dabur earlier He also pointed out that another writ petition filed by the company concerning the use of 100 claims in Real fruit juice products is already pending before the Delhi High Court and that no interim stay has been granted in that matterDixit further submitted that similar proceedings have been initiated in respect of multiple other productsIn response Sethi clarified that the earlier improvement notice related only to the fruit juice products and not to the products covered by the present prohibitory orderDuring the hearing the Court enquired about the status of Daburs earlier challenge concerning 100 claims on fruit juice After being informed that the matter remains pending without any interim protection Sethi maintained that the present case stood on a different footing because the impugned action was a prohibitory order immediately stopping the sale of products and questioned whether the Designated Officer possessed the statutory power to issue such an orderThe Court also remarked that Dabur had been selling the products under the same labels for decades and observed that the company had made out a prima facie case for interim reliefThe petition challenges the FSSAIs August 3 2026 prohibitory order directing Dabur to immediately stop the sale of several products including Dabur Honey Dabur Honey Squeezy Dabur Sunderbans Honey Dabur Himalayan Apple Cider Vinegar Dabur Himalayan Organic Apple Cider Vinegar Dabur Virgin Coconut Oil Dabur Cold Pressed Sesame Oil Dabur Cow Ghee Real Activ 100 Tender Coconut Water Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk and Dabur Organic Honey on the ground that claims such as 100 Pure and 100 Natural are allegedly misleading The regulator had also required the company to submit an Action Taken Report within 15 days and warned of penal consequences for continued salesIn its writ petition Dabur contends that the order was issued without any prior showcause notice or opportunity of hearing contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Advertising and Claims Regulations 2018 The company has further argued that the impugned order is without jurisdiction is a nonspeaking order and effectively compels it to recall or repackage products already available in the market despite there being no allegation that the products are adulterated unsafe spurious or substandardThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever