Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J. stayed an order directing petitioners to remove the claim of “No Added Sugar”, “No Maida” and “No Palm Oil” from the label of its products on the ground of these being violative of Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 (2018 Regulations), after prima facie concurring with the petitioner that such non-addition of ingredients claims are factual statements about the product and they do not undermine other manufacturer’s products or influence consumer behaviour. The Court allowed the petitioner to produce and market the product without the claim “100% Millets” as agreed by it.
Also Read: FSSAI Food Labelling and Misbranding Liability | SCC Times
Background
A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to provide reasons as to why the claim “100% Millets”, “No Added Sugar”, “No Maida” and “No Palm Oil” not be declared as misleading and not permissible under Regulation 6(1) of the 2018 Regulations.
Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to remove/discontinue the claim of “No Added Sugar”, “No Maida” and “No Palm Oil” from the label of its products, that is, biscuit/cookies by an order dated 9 October 2026.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. None were present for the respondents, notice was issued.
Regulatory Objections
Claims relating to the non-addition of specific ingredients create an impression that such ingredients are unsafe, undesirable or inferior thereby raising unwarranted doubts regarding their safety and suitability for consumption, violating Regulations 4(1), 10(5) of the 2018 Regulations.
Moreover, such claims undermine the products of other manufacturers and influences consumer behaviour.
Also Read: Supreme Court Gives Centre 2 Weeks to Decide on Front-of-Package Labelling | SCC Times
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioners submitted that pursuant to the show-cause notice, they have agreed to remove the claim of “100% millets”, even though their product, in fact contained 100 per cent millets.
They further contended that the claim “No Added Sugar”, “No Maida” and “No Palm Oil” were factual statements about the product’s ingredients. Such factual statements did not undermine other manufacturers’ products or influence consumer behaviour in a manner prohibited by the regulations.
Court’s Analysis
The Court prima facie agreed with the petitioner’s arguments that the claims of “No Added Sugar”, “No Maida” and “No Palm Oil” are facts about the products and cannot be treated as advertisements that undermined other manufacturers’ products or unlawfully influenced consumer behaviour.
The Court noted that petitioner had agreed to manufacture the product without the claim “100% Millets”. Copy of the new packaging was annexed with the petition which indicated that the petitioner now intended to manufacture and market its product without the claim “100% Millets”.
Decision
The Court stayed the impugned order dated 9 October 2026. It further allowed the petitioner to produce and market its product, without the claim “100% Millets” as discussed above.
The matter is further listed on 15 January 2027.
[Britannia Industries Ltd. v. FSSAI, W.P.(C) 15649/2026, decided on 16-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate; Rajesh Batra, Sonia Kukreja, Rohit Chandra, Dhruba Dhar, Sadhika Kochhar, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi, Advocates.
