A single phrase on a food packet has become the centre of a regulatory dispute between one of India’s largest FMCG companies and the country’s food safety regulator.
The Delhi High Court on August 7 stayed an FSSAI order directing Dabur India to stop selling several products carrying claims such as “100% Pure”, “100% Natural” and “100% Organic”.
The court’s intervention gives Dabur temporary relief, but it does not settle whether such claims comply with India’s food advertising rules.
Delhi HC Puts Order On Hold
The dispute began with an FSSAI prohibitory order issued on August 3. The regulator directed Dabur to discontinue the sale of products carrying certain “100%” claims.
Dabur challenged the action before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the regulator had acted without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard. The company also questioned the legal basis and reasoning of the order.
Justice Amit Mahajan, while hearing the petition on August 7, said the court was prima facie of the view that the prohibitory order should not have been passed without giving Dabur an opportunity of hearing. The court therefore stayed the order until the next hearing and issued notice to the Centre, FSSAI and other respondents.
This is an interim development, not a final ruling on whether Dabur’s claims are lawful.
Which Products Are Affected
According to the Economic Times report, the FSSAI order covers several Dabur food products, including Dabur Honey, Dabur Honey Squeezy, Dabur Sunderbans Honey, Dabur Himalayan Apple Cider Vinegar, Dabur Virgin Coconut Oil, Dabur Cow Ghee, Real Activ 100% Tender Coconut Water, Dabur Hommade Coconut Milk and Dabur Organic Honey.
The disputed language includes “100% Pure”, “100% Natural”, “100% Purity Guaranteed” and “100% Organic”.
Dabur has argued that the regulator’s action could effectively require products already available in the market to be recalled or repackaged.
It also told the court that the FSSAI order was publicised on social media and that some channel partners and online retailers were advised not to sell the affected products, which the company said had immediate commercial consequences. These are Dabur’s submissions before the court, rather than independently established findings.
Importantly, Dabur has also argued that FSSAI has not alleged that the products are adulterated, unsafe, spurious or sub-standard. According to the company, the dispute concerns their labelling and advertising claims.
Why ‘100%’ Became Issue
The regulatory action did not emerge in isolation.
On May 30, 2025, FSSAI issued an industry-wide advisory asking food businesses to refrain from using “100%” on food labels, packaging and promotional content. The regulator said the expression was not defined under the existing food regulations and could create a false impression of absolute purity or superiority.
FSSAI also pointed to the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, under which food claims are required to be truthful, unambiguous, meaningful and not misleading.
The Dabur case therefore brings a broader labelling question into sharper focus: when an FMCG company uses an absolute expression such as “100%”, what exactly is being guaranteed to the consumer, and what evidence is required to support that representation?
The answer matters because packaging is often the first source of information available to a consumer at the point of purchase.
Business Stakes For Dabur
For Dabur, the dispute comes as the company continues to operate at considerable scale. It reported consolidated revenue of ₹13,193 crore for FY2025-26, a 5% increase over the previous year, while net profit rose 7.4% to ₹1,869 crore.
Its food portfolio also remains commercially significant. In the fourth quarter of FY2025-26, Dabur said its Foods business grew 30%, with emerging channels including e-commerce and quick commerce contributing to its online business.
That does not establish the revenue contribution of the products involved in the FSSAI order, which Dabur has not disclosed in the material reviewed for this article. But it does show why labelling decisions can have operational implications for a company whose products are sold through multiple retail and digital channels.
For now, the court stay allows the affected products to remain outside the immediate impact of the August 3 prohibition order while the legal challenge proceeds.
What Happens From Here
The next stage will focus less on the marketing appeal of “100%” and more on regulatory procedure and legal authority.
Dabur has challenged the order on several grounds, including the absence of a prior hearing and what it says is a lack of specific reasoning explaining how the disputed claims violate applicable regulations.
It has also questioned whether the statutory provision cited by FSSAI independently empowers a Designated Officer to prohibit sales.
The Centre, meanwhile, has defended the regulatory action and told the court that Dabur had previously received improvement notices and advisories.
The High Court’s August 7 order does not determine which side will ultimately prevail. It establishes only that the prohibition will remain stayed for now.
For consumers, the case is ultimately about clarity. For FMCG companies, it is about how far marketing language can go when a product label makes an absolute promise. And for FSSAI, the case could test not only its approach to “100%” claims, but also the procedural safeguards that accompany regulatory enforcement.
Also Read: Uttarakhand Bans Fake Dairy Products: Why Paneer, Ghee And Butter Face Tighter Checks
