Delhi High Court Stays FSSAI Order Restricting Sale Of Dabur Products With '100% Natural', '100% Pure' Claims

The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) prohibitory order restraining Dabur India Limited from selling several food products carrying "100% pure" or "100% natural" claims, prima facie holding that the regulator acted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Justice Amit Mahajan stayed FSSAI's August 3, 2026,, order after observing that Dabur had neither been issued a show-cause noticenor beenr given an opportunity of hearing before the action was taken. The interim stay will remain in force till the next hearing on August 24, 2026.

"The impugned order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. It has been passed without giving any show-cause notice," the court observed.

FSSAI's August 3 order directed Dabur to stop selling specified food products carrying expressions such as "100% Natural", "100% Pure", "100% Purity Guaranteed", "100% Organic" and similar absolute claims. The products covered included honey, cow ghee, apple cider vinegar, virgin coconut oil, sesame oil, coconut water and coconut milk.

According to FSSAI, such "100%" claims were ambiguous, incapable of verification and likely to mislead consumers under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. It directed Dabur to discontinue the claims and report compliance.

The matter, originally listed before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, was transferred to Justice Amit Mahajan due to Justice Sharma's absence

Challenging the order, Dabur argued that a "prohibition order" is defined under Section 3(1)(zl) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 as an order issued under Section 33.

It submitted that Section 33 permits such an order only after the conviction of a food business operator, when a court is satisfied that a health risk exists and after giving the operator an opportunity of hearing.

The company contended that FSSAI had instead relied on Section 36, which merely sets out the functions of a Designated Officer. While the provision authorises the officer to prohibit the sale of food found to be in contravention of the Act or regulations, it does not independently confer the kind of prohibitory power exercised in the present case, Dabur argued.

Dabur also emphasised that FSSAI was not alleging its products were harmful, adulterated, or otherwise unfit for consumption. The regulator's objection was confined to the allegedly misleading "100%" claims, it submitted.

Counsel further argued that even emergency prohibition provisions contemplate notice before action is taken. Therefore, a non-emergency order restraining sale of products could not have been passed without first hearing the company.

Defending the action, the FSSAI relied on an April 8 improvement notice and a May 27, 2025 advisory directing food businesses to discontinue "100%" claims on product labels. It submitted that such terminology was ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation.

The regulator also pointed out that a similar dispute concerning Dabur's fruit juice products is already pending before the High Court.

FSSAI also argued that Dabur was not being prohibited from selling the underlying products altogether and could continue selling them after removing the objectionable “100%” claims. Dabur countered that its products had been sold with such labels for decades and objected to an immediate prohibition without a prior hearing.

The court was not persuaded, at the interim stage, that the prohibitory direction could operate without first affording Dabur an opportunity of hearing.

It accordingly stayed the August 3 order and listed the matter before the roster bench on August 24, 2026.