Back
Restrains FSSAI from Cancelling ITC's Licence Over '100%' Claims on Aashirvaad Atta
The has stepped in to temporarily shield from potential licence cancellation by the , over the company’s use of “100%” and “0% Maida” claims on its popular Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta product. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted , directing FSSAI to refrain from any decision on licence cancellation until the next hearing scheduled for . The ruling came in response to ITC’s petition challenging FSSAI’s advisories and improvement notices that demanded the removal of what the regulator termed misleading label declarations.
The Dispute: A Timeline of Regulatory Action
In , FSSAI issued a general advisory to all food business operators, asking them to discontinue the use of “100%” on food product labels, packaging, and promotional material. The rationale was that such could mislead consumers about a product’s composition or origin. On , FSSAI served a on ITC, alleging non-compliance with this advisory. The notice specifically pointed to claims such as “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” on the packaging and “Made from 100% M.P Wheat only” in advertisements, calling them impermissible under regulations. ITC was given 30 days to respond.
Matters escalated rapidly. Just three days later, on August 13, the issued an directing ITC to remove the claims “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” as well as “0% Maida” from all labels and advertisements. The notice gave the company only 15 days to submit a compliance report, warning that failure could result in suspension of its FSSAI licence. This timeline—issuing an before the response to the had even been filed—became a central point of contention.
ITC’s Legal Challenge: Natural Justice and Validity of Advisory
ITC challenged the before the , arguing that it violated . The company contended that the notice was premature, as it was issued before the expiry of the 30-day period granted in the August 10 . “The was issued prior to even before the expiry of the 30 days granted to it by FSSAI to respond to the allegations, and was effectively a final order of prohibition,” the petition stated.
Furthermore, ITC questioned the legal foundation of FSSAI’s advisory. The company argued that a binding prohibition on “100%” claims cannot be introduced through a mere advisory without following the statutory process for framing regulations under the . That process requires prior publication, Central government approval, and scrutiny by Parliament. By bypassing these safeguards, FSSAI acted beyond its authority, ITC submitted.
The company also highlighted that FSSAI had not alleged that the Aashirvaad product contains maida (refined flour), includes any ingredient other than atta (whole wheat flour), or uses wheat sourced from outside Madhya Pradesh. In other words, the factual basis for the regulatory action was not in dispute—only the legality of the regulator’s method.
Jurisdictional Hurdle: Delhi vs. Kolkata
Another significant issue before the court was . FSSAI’s counsel objected to the of ITC’s petition in Delhi, arguing that the was issued by its regional authority in Kolkata. The regulator also pointed to a under , which allows an aggrieved party to appeal an to the Commissioner of Food Safety.
ITC countered by relying on , under which the FSSAI’s Chief Executive Officer exercises the powers of a Commissioner of Food Safety when dealing with matters concerning central licences. Since the CEO is based in Delhi, part of the arose within the of the . The court has not yet ruled on this jurisdictional question and has directed both parties to file brief written notes. In the interim, Justice Sharma observed:
“Since the issue regarding jurisdiction is to be decided and the courts will be closed, till the next date of hearing, no decision regarding cancellation of the license will be taken.”
Separate but Related: AWL Agri Business Also in the Fray
During the same hearing, the court also addressed a separate petition by , which received FSSAI notices over allegedly misleading label claims including “100% Veg” and “Cholesterol Free – For Healthy Lifestyle” on its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil. Justice Sharma indicated she would pass an order on on the of that petition, which raises similar questions about the regulator’s power to ban through advisories.
Legal Implications: A Test Case for Regulatory Authority
The ITC case has broader implications for the food industry and regulatory practice. At its core, the dispute challenges FSSAI’s ability to enforce binding obligations through non-statutory advisories. If the court ultimately holds that such advisories lack legal force, it could prompt the regulator to either withdraw or formalise its guidance through proper rule-making procedures.
The jurisdictional aspect also merits attention. If the asserts jurisdiction over enforcement actions taken by regional authorities—especially when a central licence is involved—it may alter the forum for future challenges, potentially centralising litigation in the national capital.
Moreover, the concept of “” in food labelling is not unique to India. Comparable regulations in the European Union and the United States permit certain “100%” claims only when substantiated by rigorous evidence. The ’s eventual ruling could set a precedent for how Indian courts balance with .
Industry and Consumer Perspectives
For food business operators, the case underscores the need to monitor FSSAI advisories closely and to ensure that product claims are defensible. Many companies use descriptors like “100% whole wheat” or “no added sugar” to differentiate their products; a blanket ban on such claims could force widespread relabelling. On the other hand, consumer advocacy groups may argue that ambiguous or exaggerated claims mislead buyers, particularly in a market where food adulteration is a persistent concern.
What’s Next?
The matter is listed for further hearing on . By then, the court will have the benefit of written arguments on jurisdiction and the substantive validity of the advisory. ITC’s remains in place until that date. The outcome will be closely watched by legal practitioners, food industry executives, and regulatory compliance officers alike, as it touches on foundational questions of administrative law, natural justice, and the scope of .
