Delhi High Court: Britannia FSSAI Claims Stay on 'No Added Sugar'

• The Delhi High Court stayed an FSSAI order that prohibited Britannia from using 'no added sugar', 'no maida', and 'no palm oil' claims on its NutriChoice Millets Cookies.
• Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that these claims are not designed to undermine competitors or improperly influence consumers, as per advertising regulations.
• Britannia argued that the FSSAI's directive was based on incorrect facts and that 'no maida' and 'no palm oil' are factual statements permissible under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018.
• The court allowed Britannia to continue using these specific claims, though Britannia had already agreed to remove the "100% millets" assertion.
• This ruling clarifies that factually accurate ingredient claims may not be easily restricted by FSSAI, impacting future food labeling challenges.

This decision by the Delhi High Court carries significant implications for the food industry, particularly concerning the scope of FSSAI's authority to regulate factual claims on product packaging and advertisements.

The Delhi High Court recently intervened in a dispute between the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and Britannia, issuing a stay on an FSSAI directive that sought to restrict certain claims made by the food manufacturer. The FSSAI order had specifically prohibited Britannia from using phrases such as 'no added sugar', 'no maida', and 'no palm oil' on the packaging and in advertisements for its NutriChoice Millets Cookies. This judicial intervention allows Britannia to continue marketing its product with these specific ingredient-related assertions, pending further proceedings.

The FSSAI's original order, dated October 9, 2026, aimed to prevent Britannia from utilizing these claims, which were deemed by the regulatory body to potentially violate advertising standards. However, the High Court's decision, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan, temporarily suspends the enforcement of this directive. This development marks a significant moment for food companies navigating the complex landscape of advertising and labeling regulations in India, particularly concerning factual ingredient declarations.

Britannia initiated the legal challenge against the FSSAI order, arguing that the regulatory body's directions were founded on an inaccurate understanding of the facts and were issued without a properly reasoned decision. The company asserted that the claims 'no maida' and 'no palm oil' are straightforward factual statements regarding the constituents of its product. According to Britannia, such factual declarations are not explicitly forbidden under the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, which govern how food products can be advertised and what claims can be made about them.

Furthermore, Britannia contested the FSSAI's assertion that the company had agreed to retract these three specific claims during a personal hearing conducted on October 7. Britannia maintained that no such commitment was made regarding the 'no added sugar', 'no maida', or 'no palm oil' statements. The core of Britannia's argument rested on the premise that accurately stating the absence of certain ingredients should not be construed as a violation of advertising regulations, especially when those statements are verifiable and truthful. The company highlighted that the FSSAI had previously circulated a communication in September, which may have contributed to the regulatory body's stance.

In granting the stay, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court articulated that the claims in question — 'no added sugar', 'no maida', and 'no palm oil' — could not be reasonably interpreted as advertisements designed to undermine the products of competing manufacturers. Nor could they be seen as attempts to unduly influence consumer behavior in a manner that contravenes established regulations. This judicial perspective suggests a distinction between promotional claims that might mislead or disparage and factual statements about a product's composition.

The court's ruling specifically permits Britannia to continue producing and marketing its NutriChoice Millets Cookies with these claims. It is important to note, however, that Britannia had previously agreed to remove the claim "100% millets" from its product labeling. This concession by Britannia was acknowledged by the court, indicating a partial resolution on one specific claim while the broader issue of factual ingredient declarations remains under judicial scrutiny. The stay order allows Britannia to proceed with its current labeling, excluding the "100% millets" assertion.

This decision by the Delhi High Court carries significant implications for the food industry, particularly concerning the scope of FSSAI's authority to regulate factual claims on product packaging and advertisements. The ruling suggests that if claims like 'no added sugar', 'no maida', or 'no palm oil' are factually accurate, they may not be easily prohibited under the existing Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018. This could set a precedent for other food manufacturers seeking to challenge similar directives from the FSSAI, reinforcing the idea that truthful ingredient declarations are permissible.

The court's stance underscores the importance of distinguishing between misleading advertising and transparent communication about product ingredients. For companies, this means a potential strengthening of their ability to highlight specific attributes of their products, provided these claims are verifiable. The outcome of this case will likely influence how FSSAI approaches the regulation of such claims in the future, potentially leading to a re-evaluation of what constitutes an "undermining" advertisement versus a factual statement about product composition.

This ruling clarifies the scope of FSSAI's power to restrict factual claims on food packaging and advertisements, particularly 'no added sugar,' 'no maida,' and 'no palm oil.' It indicates that such claims, if factually accurate, may not be easily prohibited under current regulations, providing a precedent for companies challenging similar FSSAI directives. Compliance officers should review their product labeling strategies in light of this judicial interpretation.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets