Delhi High Court Plays Referee: Resolves Veg/Non-Veg Labelling Clash Between Rival Regulators

In a pivotal intervention, the Delhi High Court has directed the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Director of Legal Metrology to hold a joint meeting and forge a unified policy on whether red/brown or green dots—signalling non-vegetarian or vegetarian origins—must adorn packages of soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, and other cosmetics. The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain flagged a glaring "clear contradiction" between the two departments in the ongoing writ petition filed by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited against the Union of India . The matter, pending since 2015, was listed for further hearing on April 27, 2026 .

A Decade-Long Battle Over Tiny Dots

Reckitt Benckiser, the Indian arm of the global giant behind brands like Dettol, Harpic, soaps, hand washes, and sanitizers, launched this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in March 2015 . At its heart is a challenge to the 2014 amendment to Rule 6(8) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 , which mandates a red or brown dot at the top of the principal display panel for non-vegetarian origin products and a green dot for vegetarian ones on packages of soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, and toiletries.

The petition secured an interim stay in 2015, mirroring relief from the Bombay High Court in a similar case, shielding Reckitt from coercive action for non-compliance "until further orders." Despite a counter-affidavit and additional submissions, the case simmered until a fresh hearing in February 2026 , where regulatory inconsistencies came to the fore.

Petitioner's Strike: Jurisdiction Overreach and Expert Dissent

Reckitt's counsel, Mr. R. Jawahar Lal , argued that the Director of Legal Metrology lacks jurisdiction to impose such labelling. He contended that toiletries fall under "cosmetics" governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 , placing authority with the DCGI , not Legal Metrology.

Bolstering this, Reckitt highlighted Drug Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) minutes from May 2018 and April 2021 . The DTAB, after stakeholder consultations, rejected mandatory dots under the Cosmetics Rules, 2020 , citing "no clarity and system to certify vegetarian and non-vegetarian ingredients." Instead, it recommended voluntary labelling via an advisory, to avoid "complicating regulation and adding burden on stakeholders." A September 2021 notice echoed this voluntary approach. Thus, the 2014 notification "deserves to be quashed," counsel urged.

Respondent's Pause: Time to Realign

For the Union, Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla , appearing with other counsel, sought time to address the DTAB evidence, leaving the government's full response pending a joint affidavit.

Court's Sharp Eye on Regulatory Rift

The bench dissected the overlap: Some products fall under DCGI jurisdiction, others do not. Yet, Legal Metrology mandates dots , while DTAB advises voluntariness —a "clear conflict." Noting the petition's 10-year pendency, the court emphasized the need for harmony.

No precedents were cited , but the reasoning hinged on administrative coordination, stakeholder input, and reconciling expert advice with statutory mandates.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • "There is a clear contradiction in the stands of both these departments." (Para 11)
  • " Prima facie , considering the recommendation of the DTAB... there is a clear conflict between the advice of the DTAB and the impugned notification of the department of Legal Metrology." (Para 13)
  • "There is therefore a need for both these Departments to come together and to take a decision after holding stakeholder’s consultation as to whether incorporation of such a dot ought to be mandatory or should it be left to be implemented voluntarily by the manufacturers/sellers of these products." (Para 14)
  • "A joint meeting shall be held between the Director, Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at." (Para 15)

Unified Front Ordered: No Final Verdict Yet

The court impleaded the DCGI as Respondent No. 2 , mandated a joint meeting with stakeholder participation within two months , and required a joint affidavit two weeks before the next hearing . The 2015 interim stay continues.

This ruling underscores the perils of regulatory silos, potentially easing burdens on FMCG firms if voluntariness prevails. It signals courts' growing role in harmonizing overlapping regimes, with implications for cosmetics labelling nationwide—and clarity for consumers scanning those tiny dots.