The Delhi High Court has asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to refrain from taking any decision to cancel ITC’s licence over the company’s use of “100%” claims on its Aashirvaad Shudh Chakki Atta product. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notices to FSSAI and other respondents on ITC’s petition challenging the regulator’s advisory on “100%” claims used on food products. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on September 9.
ITC challenges FSSAI advisory
The court directed FSSAI to “hold its hands” and not proceed with any licence cancellation until the next hearing. It has also asked the parties to submit brief notes addressing the question of jurisdiction. FSSAI has opposed ITC’s petition, arguing that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the challenge. ITC, however, has described the regulator’s action as arbitrary and beyond its powers under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The company has argued that food businesses are required to comply with the Act, rules and regulations, but are not legally bound by an advisory issued outside that statutory framework.
Dispute centres on ‘100%’ labelling
The legal dispute stems from an FSSAI advisory dated May 28, 2025, which asked food business operators to stop using “100%” on food labels, packaging and promotional material. ITC has challenged both the advisory and subsequent regulatory actions. These include an August 10 show-cause notice alleging non-compliance and an August 13 improvement notice directing the company to remove certain claims from product labels, advertisements and its website. ITC has argued that existing food-labelling regulations do not expressly prohibit “100%” claims. It has cited Regulation 4(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, which permits label information provided it does not conflict with applicable regulations. The company has also relied on the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, arguing that these rules similarly do not prohibit the use of “100%”.
