Relief for Dabur India: Delhi HC Stays FSSAI Ban on Products Carrying '100%' Claims
The interim order was passed by Justice Amit Mahajan in a writ petition filed by Dabur challenging the FSSAI's Prohibitory Order dated August 3, 2026.
The case concerns Dabur India Limited's challenge to an FSSAI prohibition order dated August 3, 2026, purportedly issued under Section 36 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the High Court's order, the impugned direction prohibited the sale of products specified in the order and gave Dabur 15 days to report compliance.
The broader regulatory dispute concerns the use of “100 per cent” expressions on food products.FSSAI had directed Dabur to stop selling identified products carrying claims including “100% Natural”, “100% Pure”, “100% Purity Guaranteed”, “100% Organic” and “100% Tender Coconut Water”. Food regulator FSSAI prohibited Dabur India from selling many products such as honey, cow ghee, and edible oils using '100 per cent' claims, saying that such labelling is against the law.
In a social media post on Monday, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) informed that it has issued a prohibition order to Dabur India Ltd over the sales of food products carrying misleading '100 per cent' claims, including honey, apple cider vinegar, virgin coconut oil, sesame oil, cow ghee, coconut water, coconut milk and other such items.
Giving details about the violations, the FSSAI said that "food products being sold on the company's website were found carrying misleading
'100 per cent' claims such as '100 per cent Natural', '100 per cent Pure', '100 per cent Purity Guaranteed', '100 per cent Organic' and '100 per cent Tender Coconut Water'."
LawBeat reports FSSAI had also flagged the use of the Jaivik Bharat logo on Dabur Himalayan Organic Apple Cider Vinegar and Dabur Organic Honey, besides raising objections to the “100% Purity” claim used for Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk.
Meanwhile, the company, in a statement, said, “At Dabur, trust isn't built through words. It's earned every day through the products we create and the standards we uphold.” The company described the matter concerning the use of “100%” on some product labels as a technical issue and clarified that it “in no way questions the quality, safety and standards” of its products. Dabur further said that the issue is applicable to the entire industry and that it is engaging with the authorities to resolve the matter.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Dabur, submitted before the Delhi High Court that the products in question had been sold for several decades. He also challenged the authority of the Designated Officer to prohibit the sale of the products in the manner adopted in the present case. More importantly, Dabur argued that the prohibition order had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Dabur specifically submitted that no show-cause notice had been issued before the prohibition order was passed and that the company had not been given an opportunity to present its case. The petitioner further argued that even where an emergency prohibition is contemplated, notice is required to be served upon the concerned party.
According to Dabur's submission recorded by the Court, the present case was not an emergency situation, and therefore the prohibition could not have been imposed without affording the company an opportunity of hearing.
Further, according to media reports of the hearing, including LiveLaw's report, the respondent side relied on previous regulatory intervention and improvement notices issued to Dabur. The respondents reportedly argued that the company had already been alerted to the regulatory concerns before the prohibition order was issued. This part of the account is therefore attributed to the media report and should be distinguished from the submissions expressly recorded in the Court's written order.
After considering the arguments advanced by Dabur's senior counsel, Justice Amit Mahajan formed a prima facie view that a prohibition order of this nature should not have been passed without giving the affected party an opportunity. The Court did not finally determine whether Dabur's “100%” claims were legally permissible, whether they were actually misleading, or whether FSSAI's substantive interpretation of the food regulations was correct.
The Court's exact observation, as recorded in the official order, is:
“Considering the arguments made by learned senior counsel, this Court prima facie is of the opinion that the Prohibitory Order of such nature ought not to have been passed without affording an opportunity.”
There is no final judgement yet in the matter. The Delhi High Court has only granted interim protection to Dabur by staying the operation of the impugned FSSAI prohibition order until the next date of hearing. The Court expressly ordered:
“The impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing.”
The Court further directed that the matter be listed on August 24, 2026, before the Roster Bench.
To view the court judgement, click the link below:
