Delhi High Court has stayed FSSAI’s August 3 directive restricting Dabur from selling products carrying “100% Pure”, “100% Natural” and “100% Organic” claims.
Dabur argued that FSSAI acted without issuing a preliminary notice or giving the company an opportunity to respond before imposing the restriction.
The company said the regulator has not alleged that the affected products are unsafe, adulterated or sub-standard, arguing that the dispute is limited to the validity of their labelling and advertising claims..
The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed an August 3 order issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) restricting Dabur India from selling products carrying labels such as "100% Pure", "100% Natural" and "100% Organic", Economic Times reported.
Justice Amit Mahajan also issued notices to the Centre, FSSAI and other respondents while hearing Dabur's challenge to the regulator's directive.
1 August 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Business
FSSAI had directed Dabur to stop marketing products carrying "100%" claims, arguing that such descriptions were ambiguous, difficult to verify objectively and could mislead consumers.
The products covered by the order include Dabur Honey, Dabur Honey Squeezy, Dabur Sunderbans Honey, Dabur Himalayan Apple Cider Vinegar, Dabur Virgin Coconut Oil, Dabur Cow Ghee, Real Activ 100% Tender Coconut Water, Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk and Dabur Organic Honey.
Dabur India's shares fell 1.05% to ₹410.25 on Friday at around 1:24 pm IST following the development.
Advertisement
Dabur Challenges FSSAI's Process
Dabur has argued that FSSAI did not follow the prescribed procedure before issuing the restriction.
The company told the court that it was neither served a preliminary show-cause notice nor given an opportunity to respond before the order was issued.
According to Dabur, this was contrary to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.
Under the regulations, the food regulator is required to seek clarification from a food business operator and consider its response before taking regulatory action, the company argued.
Dabur also claimed that the order had immediate commercial implications because it effectively required products already in circulation to be recalled or repackaged.
Advertisement
The company further alleged that FSSAI publicised the directive on social media and that some distributors and online retailers were advised against selling the affected products.
Company Questions Legal Basis Of Ban
Dabur has also challenged the legal foundation of the FSSAI action. The company argued that Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 lays down broad principles for food regulation but does not independently grant a Designated Officer the authority to prohibit the sale of products.
Dabur described the FSSAI directive as inadequately reasoned, arguing that it failed to specify how individual claims such as "100% Pure" or "100% Natural" breached the applicable regulations.
According to the company, the regulator merely stated that the claims "appear to be misleading" without providing specific findings to substantiate that conclusion.
Dispute Centres On Labelling, Not Safety
Dabur has maintained that the use of "100%" descriptors should not automatically be considered misleading when the claims relate to single-ingredient products or products made entirely from natural ingredients.
The company also highlighted that FSSAI had not alleged that the affected products were adulterated, unsafe, spurious or sub-standard.
Dabur's challenge therefore centres on the legality of the labelling and advertising restrictions and the procedure followed by the regulator, rather than the safety or quality of the products themselves.
The company has asked the High Court to quash the August 3 prohibitory order and grant interim protection from its implementation while the petition is being adjudicated.
