Delhi High Court Halts FSSAI Ban on ‘ORS’ Drinks, Citing Due Process and Trademark Rights

NEW DELHI – The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to JNTL Consumer Health, directing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to refrain from taking coercive action against the company over the use of the term “ORS” on its beverage products. The court’s order temporarily halts the enforcement of a recent FSSAI directive that sought to ban the term, setting the stage for a significant legal confrontation between intellectual property rights, principles of administrative law, and public health regulations.

The ruling comes in response to a petition filed by JNTL, which argued that FSSAI’s abrupt policy reversal on October 14, 2025—prohibiting the use of "ORS" on any food or drink product—was arbitrary and violated due process. The company contended that this sudden change exposed it to severe consequences, including product seizures and criminal penalties, despite its prior compliance with the regulator's own directions.

JNTL’s counsel highlighted the immense commercial and reputational stakes, informing the court that products worth approximately ₹155–180 crore were already in the supply chain. “The abrupt reversal would cause irreparable harm to its brand and goodwill built over two decades,” the company submitted, emphasizing the potential for significant financial loss and damage to its market standing.

This legal challenge brings to a head a long-simmering national debate, championed by public health advocates, over the labeling of high-sugar beverages that use the medically significant acronym for Oral Rehydration Solution.

The Regulatory Tug-of-War: FSSAI’s Shifting Stance

The controversy stems from a years-long campaign led by Hyderabad-based pediatrician Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh, who argued that companies were dangerously misleading consumers. She contended that parents, seeking a life-saving remedy for dehydrated children, were instead purchasing sugary drinks that could exacerbate conditions like diarrhoea—a leading cause of child mortality in India.

Her advocacy, which included a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Telangana High Court, prompted FSSAI to act. In April 2022, the regulator first issued an order barring non-medical beverages from using the “ORS” label. However, this directive was short-lived. Just three months later, in July 2022, FSSAI reversed its position, permitting companies to use the term with a disclaimer: ‘This product is NOT an ORS formula as recommended by WHO.’

It was this reversal and the subsequent re-imposition of a complete ban in October 2025 that formed the crux of JNTL’s legal argument. The company argued that FSSAI’s earlier stance, which was accepted before the High Court of Telangana, was binding and could not be rescinded without following established legal procedures, including providing an opportunity for stakeholders to be heard.

Trademark Rights vs. Public Health: A Clash of Statutes

A central pillar of JNTL's petition rests on intellectual property law. The company referenced an opinion from the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, which had previously confirmed that the term “ORS” when used with prefixes or suffixes, could legitimately form part of a composite trademark under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

This argument places two critical pieces of legislation in direct conflict: the Trade Marks Act, which protects a company's intellectual property and brand identity, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which empowers FSSAI to prevent misleading advertising and ensure public health. The legal question now facing the courts is whether a registered trademark can be restricted or prohibited if its use is deemed deceptive and poses a risk to public health, especially concerning a term so closely associated with a WHO-approved medical formula.

Dr. Santosh’s campaign vividly illustrates the public health stakes. WHO-approved Oral Rehydration Salts are a precisely formulated mixture of glucose and electrolytes that has saved millions of lives globally. In contrast, many of the commercial beverages in question reportedly contained up to ten times the recommended sugar levels and inadequate electrolytes, turning a supposed remedy into a potential health hazard.

“How can anyone label a drink this way and market it so deceptively?” Dr. Santosh questioned, highlighting the danger posed to vulnerable consumers, particularly parents in rural or low-literacy settings who rely on the "ORS" name as a mark of medical legitimacy.

Legal Implications and the Road Ahead

The Delhi High Court's interim order is not a final verdict on the merits of the case but a procedural safeguard. It ensures that JNTL is protected from immediate enforcement actions while the legal and regulatory issues are untangled. The order mandates that no coercive measures be taken against the company until FSSAI reconsiders its position after granting JNTL a formal hearing.

This development raises several key questions for legal professionals:

1. Administrative Law and Legitimate Expectation: Can a regulator reverse a policy that has been relied upon by businesses without demonstrating a compelling public interest and following due process? JNTL's case will likely test the doctrine of legitimate expectation, where a party can reasonably expect a public body to adhere to its stated policy.

2. The Limits of Trademark Protection: The case will serve as a critical precedent on the extent to which trademark rights can be curtailed in the name of public health. While trademarks are valuable commercial assets, their ability to mislead consumers about a product's fundamental nature, particularly in the health sector, presents a challenge that the judiciary must balance.

3. The Role of Public Interest Litigation: The entire regulatory action was catalyzed by a PIL filed by a concerned citizen-doctor. This underscores the continued power of public interest litigation as a tool to hold both corporations and government regulators accountable for public welfare.

As FSSAI prepares to grant JNTL a hearing, the food and beverage industry, along with IP and regulatory lawyers, will be watching closely. The final outcome could reshape the landscape for product labeling and health claims in India, potentially establishing a clearer hierarchy between commercial speech, intellectual property, and the state's overriding duty to protect the health of its citizens.