Delhi High Court: FSSAI Restrained on ITC 100% Atta Licence Action

• The Delhi High Court temporarily restrained the FSSAI from cancelling ITC Limited's food business licence over "100% Atta" and "0% Maida" claims.
• ITC challenged an FSSAI improvement notice, arguing it violated natural justice by being issued before the deadline to respond to an earlier show cause notice.
• The company also disputes the FSSAI's May 2025 advisory, contending that binding prohibitions cannot be introduced without following proper regulatory procedures.
• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim protection to ITC, preventing licence revocation ahead of a compliance deadline.
• The court has yet to decide on its territorial jurisdiction to hear the case and has requested submissions on this matter.

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from proceeding with any decision to revoke ITC Limited's food business licence.

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from proceeding with any decision to revoke ITC Limited's food business licence. This significant interim protection was granted in response to a petition filed by ITC, challenging regulatory actions concerning its Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta product. The court's order specifically prevents the FSSAI from acting on claims such as "100% Atta," "100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat," and "0% Maida" used on the product's packaging and promotional materials.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the directive after ITC highlighted that a compliance deadline for an improvement notice, set for August 28, was imminent. The court's intervention ensures that ITC's operations are not immediately impacted while the legal challenge, formally known as ITC Limited v. Union of India, is being heard. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for September 9, where further arguments are expected to be presented.

The legal dispute stems from a series of actions initiated by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India against ITC. The FSSAI had previously issued an advisory in May 2025, instructing food businesses to cease using the term "100%" on product labels, packaging, and other promotional content. Following this, on August 10, the FSSAI issued a show cause notice to ITC, alleging non-compliance with this advisory regarding its Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta claims. This notice provided ITC with a 30-day period to submit its response.

However, just three days later, on August 13, a regional FSSAI authority issued an improvement notice to ITC. This subsequent notice significantly shortened the compliance window, allowing only 15 days for the company to address the alleged violations. This rapid succession of directives, with differing response times, forms a central point of contention in ITC's challenge against the regulatory body's enforcement methods, particularly concerning food labelling regulations India.

ITC Limited has mounted a robust challenge to the FSSAI's actions, primarily on grounds of procedural fairness and the legal validity of the directives. The company contends that the improvement notice was issued prematurely, before it had the opportunity to respond to the initial show cause notice. This sequence of events, according to ITC, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, which mandate that a party must be given a fair hearing before adverse action is taken against them. This argument highlights the importance of natural justice FSSAI enforcement practices.

Beyond the procedural aspect, ITC has also questioned the fundamental validity of the May 2025 advisory itself. The company argues that the FSSAI cannot introduce a binding prohibition on product claims, such as those related to "100% Atta," through a mere advisory. ITC asserts that for such a significant restriction to be legally enforceable, the FSSAI must follow the prescribed regulatory procedures for framing and implementing new rules or regulations, rather than issuing an advisory that bypasses these formal steps. This forms the core of the FSSAI 100% Atta advisory challenge.

While granting interim relief, the Delhi High Court has made it clear that it has not yet rendered a decision on the crucial question of territorial jurisdiction. The court needs to determine whether it possesses the authority to hear and adjudicate ITC's challenge, given the nature of the FSSAI's operations and the company's own geographical presence. This jurisdictional aspect is a standard preliminary consideration in many legal proceedings and can significantly impact the trajectory of the case.

To facilitate this determination, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has directed both ITC and the FSSAI to submit brief notes specifically addressing the question of territorial jurisdiction. The court's decision on this matter will be a critical step before it can delve deeper into the substantive arguments regarding the validity of the FSSAI's advisory and the alleged breaches of natural justice, ensuring proper legal framework for the Delhi High Court FSSAI ITC 100% Atta licence dispute.

This case highlights the potential for challenging FSSAI's enforcement actions, particularly regarding procedural fairness and the binding nature of advisories. Lawyers should advise clients on the importance of scrutinizing regulatory notices for adherence to natural justice principles and the legal basis of FSSAI's directives, especially concerning product claims.

Source: Reporting based on legal news and court developments.