IN Brief:
- Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained FSSAI from deciding to cancel ITC’s food business licence over Aashirvaad pack claims.
- The disputed wording includes “100% Atta”, “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”, and “0% Maida”.
- The interim order lasts until the next hearing on 9 September and does not determine whether the claims themselves comply with Indian food law.
ITC has secured temporary protection from the Delhi High Court against a decision by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to cancel its food business licence over claims used on Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta packaging. The interim order leaves the regulator unable to take a cancellation decision until the next hearing on 9 September 2026.
The disputed wording includes “100% Atta”, “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”, and “0% Maida”. FSSAI has directed ITC to remove the claims from labels, advertising, and related promotional material under a wider regulatory drive against use of the term “100%” in food marketing.
The High Court has not ruled that the wording is lawful. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted interim protection while the case proceeds and has yet to determine whether the Delhi court has territorial jurisdiction to hear ITC’s challenge. The merits of the company’s arguments against FSSAI’s advisory and notices therefore remain unresolved.
That distinction is important because a temporary restraint on enforcement does not give manufacturers a new interpretation of the labelling rules. ITC can continue its legal challenge without an immediate licence-cancellation decision, but other food businesses remain exposed to FSSAI’s broader position on absolute claims unless they have separate grounds for relief.
The dispute stems from an FSSAI advisory issued in May 2025 asking food businesses to discontinue “100%” terminology on labels, packaging, and promotional material. The regulator argued that such wording could create a false sense of absolute purity or superiority and noted that existing food regulations did not define or prescribe a general “100%” claim.
For a large packaged-food manufacturer, removing that language can require much more than altering a marketing document. Printed sacks, flexible films, cartons, labels, e-commerce images, advertising, websites, trade material, distributor inventories, and retailer stocks may all carry the same claim and have to change within a controlled compliance programme.
High-volume staple foods make that transition particularly awkward. Packaging can be printed and held in substantial quantities across converters, factories, depots, and distribution centres, so a short compliance period creates a risk that otherwise serviceable material becomes unusable before stocks can be exhausted.
ITC is challenging a show-cause notice and an improvement notice requiring changes to the Aashirvaad presentation. Current court reporting says the August improvement notice gave the company a limited period in which to alter labels, advertisements, and its website and provide evidence of compliance.
The company’s case raises a wider legal question over how an advisory interacts with existing regulations and the regulator’s licensing powers. ITC argues that the advisory cannot be enforced in the manner proposed, while FSSAI maintains its position against the disputed wording. The court has requested responses while first considering whether the challenge can properly be heard in Delhi.
Manufacturing businesses generally prefer compliance rules with a defined implementation date because printed-packaging transitions can then be planned around material inventories. Enforcement through individual notices creates a different operating problem: a company may have to react before broader questions over interpretation have been tested in court.
Packaging procurement consequently sits directly inside the legal risk. If a company orders another large batch of printed film or sacks carrying wording later found unacceptable, it increases potential write-offs. If it changes the artwork immediately and then succeeds in court, the business may have surrendered a claim it regarded as commercially valuable without ultimately being required to do so.
Absolute composition language can also be more complicated than it appears. A manufacturer may intend “100% atta” as a description of the flour type, while a regulator can consider how an ordinary consumer interprets the same words in the context of the entire front panel. The dispute therefore involves presentation and impression as well as the literal composition of the product.
FSSAI has already pursued similar action against other manufacturers. earlier enforcement prompted companies to remove “100%” claims from packaging and promotional material, giving the ITC case significance as a judicial challenge to the way the wider policy is being applied.
The court proceedings now introduce another layer of uncertainty for artwork teams. Manufacturers using similar language have to decide whether to remove claims proactively, challenge individual notices, or await further judicial guidance, while packaging converters need firm instructions early enough to manage printing schedules and material inventories.
The next hearing on 9 September will not necessarily settle all of those questions. The court is still considering jurisdiction, and the case can proceed through additional procedural stages before the underlying regulatory interpretation is resolved.
For the moment, the legal position is narrow. FSSAI cannot take a decision to cancel ITC’s licence before the next hearing, but the court has not cleared “100% Atta”, “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”, or “0% Maida” for continued use and has not invalidated the regulator’s wider advisory.
That leaves ITC protected from the immediate licensing consequence while the packaging dispute remains open. The next material development will come from the court process, not from a change in the product itself.
