Justice Amit Mahajan said Dabur had been selling the products for decades and had established a prima facie case, while FSSAI cited earlier notices and advisories over potentially misleading “100 per cent” claims.
This image is only for illustrations.
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Dabur India in its legal challenge against a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India order restricting the sale of food products carrying “100 per cent” claims.
The order, issued by FSSAI on August 3, barred Dabur from selling several products labelled with claims such as “100 per cent Pure”, “100 per cent Natural”, “100 per cent Purity Guaranteed” and “100 per cent Organic”. The products named in the regulatory action included honey, cow ghee, coconut oil, sesame oil, coconut water, coconut milk and apple cider vinegar.
On Friday, August 7, Justice Amit Mahajan stayed the FSSAI order until the next hearing. The court observed that Dabur had been marketing the products for decades and appeared to have made a prima facie case. The judge also indicated that the prohibition order should not have been passed without first giving the company an opportunity to be heard.
The matter is scheduled to come up again on August 24.
Why FSSAI restricted the claims
FSSAI’s position is that absolute claims such as “100 per cent pure”, “100 per cent natural” or “100 per cent organic” can be ambiguous, difficult to verify and potentially misleading to consumers.
The regulator had reportedly found such claims on products listed on Dabur’s website. It argued that a product may meet its relevant food-safety standard without being described in absolute terms that imply complete purity or the absence of processing.
For example, a food product may contain only permitted ingredients and still undergo filtration, heating, processing, flavouring or packaging. A claim of “100 per cent natural” may therefore require careful explanation depending on the product and the meaning consumers are likely to attach to the statement. This story was also covered by The Hindu.
FSSAI cited food advertising and labelling regulations, including provisions that prohibit misleading claims. The regulator also referred to previous notices and advisories issued to the company and said corrective action had not been taken within the required period.
The dispute is therefore not necessarily about whether Dabur’s products are unsafe. It concerns the language used to market them and whether consumers could interpret the claims in a manner that goes beyond what can be scientifically or legally established.
What the Delhi High Court observed
Dabur challenged the FSSAI action before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the prohibition order had serious commercial consequences and was issued without adequate procedural fairness.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Dabur had been selling the products for decades and deserved an opportunity to present its case before such a serious order was passed. The court said the prohibition appeared, at least at the interim stage, to have been issued without giving Dabur a hearing.
The court’s order is an interim decision. It does not finally determine whether Dabur’s “100 per cent” claims comply with food-safety regulations. It only pauses the FSSAI order while the court considers the legal challenge.
This distinction is important. The company can continue to market the affected products while the stay remains in force, but the final outcome could require changes to packaging, advertising or online product descriptions.
Yeh issue kaafi important hai because it combines consumer protection, corporate branding and the legal principle that businesses should receive a fair hearing before facing serious regulatory restrictions.
Dabur’s position
Dabur has argued that the products have been sold for many years and that the company has followed existing standards. The company also told the court that several other major players in the food and consumer-goods sector use “100 per cent” claims on their products.
The argument raises a question about consistency in regulation. If a particular advertising phrase is misleading, the regulator may need to examine similar claims across the entire industry rather than focus on one company.
Dabur’s challenge also appears to focus on the procedure followed by FSSAI. The company says it should have been allowed to respond to the regulator’s concerns before a prohibition order was issued.
The court’s interim observation does not automatically validate Dabur’s labels. It only indicates that the company’s challenge requires examination and that immediate enforcement without a hearing may have been excessive.
FSSAI’s regulatory concerns
FSSAI has increasingly focused on food labels and marketing claims that may create unrealistic expectations among consumers. Phrases such as “pure”, “natural”, “organic”, “chemical-free” and “healthy” can influence purchasing decisions, particularly in categories such as honey, ghee, oils and beverages.
Consumers often interpret “100 per cent” as an absolute guarantee. A buyer may assume that a product is completely unprocessed, entirely free from additives or superior to competing products.
Regulators therefore examine whether a claim is:
Clear and specific.
Supported by scientific evidence.
Consistent with the product’s ingredients.
Supported by testing or certification.
Presented without misleading comparisons.
Understandable to ordinary consumers.
The challenge is to protect consumers without making regulation so vague that companies cannot know which claims are permitted.
FSSAI’s action against Dabur is part of a larger regulatory discussion over how food brands use purity and naturalness claims. Similar disputes could emerge involving other companies if the regulator decides to apply the same interpretation across the market.
Background and context
Food labelling rules exist to ensure that consumers receive accurate information about what they are buying. In India, packaged-food companies must comply with requirements relating to ingredients, nutrition information, allergen declarations, vegetarian or non-vegetarian symbols and advertising language.
The word “pure” has long been used in Indian food marketing, particularly for honey, ghee, edible oil and dairy products. However, modern food manufacturing involves multiple stages, including extraction, filtration, blending, heating and packaging.
That creates a regulatory challenge. A company may use “pure” to describe the absence of adulteration, while consumers may understand it as a guarantee of complete naturalness or zero processing.
FSSAI’s action suggests that the regulator wants companies to move away from sweeping claims that cannot be easily measured. Dabur’s court challenge, meanwhile, could determine how far the regulator can go without providing prior notice and a hearing.
Timeline
Earlier period: FSSAI issues advisories and notices concerning “100 per cent” claims and seeks corrective action.
August 3, 2026: FSSAI issues a prohibition order restricting the sale of selected Dabur products carrying “100 per cent” claims.
August 4–6: Dabur challenges the order before the Delhi High Court.
August 7: Delhi High Court stays the FSSAI prohibition order as interim relief.
August 24: Matter listed for the next hearing.
Why This Matters
This matters because millions of consumers rely on food labels when making purchasing decisions. Claims of absolute purity, naturalness or organic status can influence whether a product is considered healthier, safer or more trustworthy.
It also matters for the food industry. If “100 per cent” claims are restricted, companies may need to revise packaging, websites, advertisements and promotional material. Such changes could involve substantial costs, especially for products sold across multiple states and countries.
The case also concerns regulatory procedure. A food regulator must have the power to stop misleading claims, but companies should have an opportunity to explain their labels and challenge enforcement action.
For consumers, the case is a reminder that marketing language should not be treated as a complete substitute for ingredient lists, certification and independent information. In simple Hinglish, label par likha hua har claim samajhna zaroori hai; sirf “100 per cent” dekhkar decision nahi lena chahiye.
India angle
For Indian consumers, the dispute is relevant because Dabur is one of the country’s best-known consumer-goods companies. Its honey, ghee, oils and beverages are sold through supermarkets, local shops and online platforms across India.
The case could influence how other Indian food brands describe their products. If the court upholds FSSAI’s interpretation, companies may have to remove or modify absolute claims. If Dabur succeeds, brands could continue using such language subject to existing labelling rules.
The dispute also highlights the growing importance of e-commerce food listings. FSSAI’s concerns reportedly included claims displayed on Dabur’s website, which means online descriptions may face the same scrutiny as physical packaging.
India’s food market includes both major brands and smaller manufacturers. Uniform enforcement will be necessary so that smaller businesses are not penalised while large companies continue using similar claims.
Analysis
As a news writer, I see this as a significant regulatory and consumer-rights case rather than simply a dispute between Dabur and FSSAI.
FSSAI’s concern is understandable. Absolute claims can create unrealistic expectations, especially for products where “pure”, “natural” and “organic” have different technical meanings. Consumers should not be misled by language that sounds stronger than the available evidence.
At the same time, the High Court’s emphasis on a hearing is equally important. A regulator should explain its concerns, allow the company to respond and then issue a reasoned order. Immediate prohibition may be justified in cases involving an urgent health risk, but labelling disputes often require a more detailed process.
Dabur’s argument that other major companies use similar claims could become important. If the practice is widespread, the regulator may need to issue a sector-wide clarification rather than proceed through isolated enforcement actions.
The final outcome should ideally provide clear rules. Companies need to know what phrases are allowed, while consumers need labels that communicate meaningful and verifiable information.
What Next
The next hearing on August 24 will be important. FSSAI may defend its order by presenting earlier notices, advisories, regulatory provisions and evidence that the claims were misleading.
Dabur is likely to argue that the company complied with the existing legal framework, that the products have been sold for decades and that the order caused immediate commercial harm without due process.
The court may ask FSSAI to issue a fresh notice, conduct a hearing or reconsider the prohibition after examining Dabur’s response. It may also examine whether similar claims by other companies require regulatory review.
The final judgement could affect packaging, advertising and online marketing across the food industry. Companies may voluntarily replace “100 per cent” claims with more specific descriptions, such as the product’s ingredients, source, certification or production method.
Longer term, the case may lead FSSAI to publish more detailed guidelines on purity and natural and organic claims. That would help consumers and reduce disputes between regulators and food manufacturers.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision to stay the FSSAI order against Dabur has temporarily allowed the company to continue selling food products carrying “100 per cent” claims. The court’s interim relief was based primarily on procedural concerns, including the regulator’s failure to provide Dabur an opportunity to be heard before issuing the prohibition order.
The case is not yet a final victory for Dabur or a defeat for FSSAI. The court will still examine whether claims such as “100 per cent pure”, “100 per cent natural” and “100 per cent organic” comply with food-labelling and advertising rules.
For consumers, the dispute highlights the importance of reading labels carefully. For companies, it shows that marketing claims must be supported by clear evidence and consistent with regulatory requirements. The final judgement could shape how food brands across India describe purity, naturalness and quality in the years ahead.
Written By A. Jack
