- The Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from taking any decision to cancel ITC Limited’s food business licence over its use of the claims “100% Atta”, “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” and “0% Maida” for Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta.
- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted the interim protection after ITC said that the deadline for complying with an August 13 improvement notice would expire on August 28.
- The Court clarified that it was yet to decide whether it had territorial jurisdiction to examine ITC’s challenge.
- The next hearing has been set for September 9.
- The proceedings arise from an August 10 show cause notice alleging that ITC had violated FSSAI’s May 2025 advisory asking food businesses to discontinue the use of “100%” on product labels, packaging and promotional material.
- While that notice gave ITC 30 days to respond, the regional authority issued the improvement notice 3 days later and allowed only 15 days for compliance.
- ITC has argued that the improvement notice was issued before it could respond to the show cause notice and, therefore, violated principles of natural justice.
- The company has also challenged the validity of the May 2025 advisory itself, contending that FSSAI cannot introduce a binding prohibition through an advisory without following the procedure prescribed for framing regulations.
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ITC Limited, restraining the FSSAI from canceling its food business license over disputed claims on its Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta.1
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that no decision regarding the license cancellation would be made until the next hearing on September 9.24
The case stems from an August 10 show cause notice alleging ITC's violation of a May 2025 FSSAI advisory that prohibits the use of '100%' claims on food labels. ITC contends that the improvement notice was issued prematurely, violating principles of natural justice, as it was issued before the company could respond to the show cause notice.67
ITC argues that the FSSAI cannot enforce a binding prohibition through an advisory without following proper regulatory procedures, including prior publication and parliamentary scrutiny. The company maintains that FSSAI has not proven that its product contains maida or any non-compliant ingredients.
During the hearing, FSSAI's counsel questioned the maintainability of ITC's petition in Delhi, asserting that the improvement notice was issued by its regional authority in Kolkata. However, ITC countered that the dispute involves a central license, justifying the court's jurisdiction.
The court's decision to grant interim protection reflects the ongoing legal complexities surrounding food labeling regulations in India, with significant implications for ITC's marketing strategies and compliance with FSSAI guidelines.
“The court's interim protection comes as ITC challenges the validity of FSSAI's May 2025 advisory, arguing that a binding prohibition cannot be introduced without proper regulation. The jurisdictional question remains unresolved, with FSSAI contending the improvement notice was issued in Kolkata, while ITC relies on the CEO's Delhi-based authority.”
