In a relief to Dabur India, the Delhi High Court on Friday stayed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) order that prohibited the consumer goods company from selling its products carrying claims such as “100% Pure”, “100% Natural” and “100% Purity Guaranteed”.
The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan said, prima facie, the food regulator should not have passed the prohibitory order without first giving Dabur an opportunity to be heard.
Justice Mahajan issued notice on Dabur’s petition challenging the FSSAI’s 3 August order and directed the regulator to file its response within 15 days. The interim stay on the impugned order will continue till the next date of hearing on 24 August.
“This Court is of the opinion that the prohibitory order of such nature ought not to have been passed without affording an opportunity of holding. Till the next stage, the effect of the impugned order is stayed,” the court observed.
The FSSAI had directed Dabur to stop selling products bearing the impugned claims, stating that such statements could not be scientifically verified and were likely to mislead consumers by creating the impression that the products were superior to competing brands. The order covered several products, including honey, ghee, sesame oil, coconut water and coconut milk.
Appearing for Dabur, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi argued that the regulator had exceeded its statutory powers by issuing what was effectively a prohibitory order without following due process. He contended that the order had been passed without granting the company a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Appearing for FSSAI, counsel Ashish Dixit submitted that the issue concerning Dabur’s “100%” claims is already pending before the Delhi High Court in a separate petition relating to Real fruit juice, where interim protection has been granted.
Opposing the plea, counsel for FSSAI submitted that an improvement notice had earlier been issued to the company and maintained that the designated officer was empowered to prohibit the sale of products found to be in contravention of the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Shares of Dabur have been on a decline since the order was passed on 3 August. They were trading at ₹409 apiece on the National Stock Exchange, down 0.5% from the previous close and closer to the 52-week low.
Queries emailed to Dabur are yet to elicit a response.
FSSAI’s actions
On 3 August, FSSAI directed Dabur to immediately prohibit the sale of the food products identified in the notice and all other food products carrying the misleading claims, and to submit an action-taken report (ATR) within 15 days.
Products mentioned in the order include Dabur’s Honey, Apple Cider Vinegar, Virgin Coconut Oil, Sesame Oil, Cow Ghee, Coconut Water, Coconut Milk and other products, carrying misleading 100% claims.
The use of the 100% claims is in contravention of the FSS (Advertising & Claims) Regulations, 2018, as they are ambiguous, unverifiable and likely to mislead consumers, the regulator said in the order.
The FSSAI said Dabur Himalayan Organic Apple Cider Vinegar and Dabur Organic Honey displayed the Jaivik Bharat Logo without a valid FSSAI organic endorsement, according to the order.
On 4 August, Dabur said it had initiated a transition from such labels. “Dabur had already initiated transitioning of the product labels as mentioned in the FSSAI letter to new labels/advertisements without the 100% claim,” the company said in a statement. “Most product labels/advertisements/ website as mentioned in aforesaid order, have either already transitioned or are in the process of transition.”
Dabur’s food segment generated revenue of ₹1,974.31 crore in FY26, down 4.4% from the year ago. Dabur generated net sales of ₹13,042 crore in FY26.
“Absolute claims such as ‘100%’ naturally attract closer regulatory scrutiny because they can create an impression of certainty that may not always be scientifically verifiable,” said Bejon Kumar Misra, former member of FSSAI.
“The interim stay granted by the High Court should therefore be viewed as part of the legal process and not as a final determination on the issue,” he said.