The Delhi High Court on October 6 allowed PepsiCo and Monster Beverages to sell their existing stocks carrying the “Energy Drink” label, while making it clear that they cannot manufacture fresh products bearing the disputed descriptor.
Justice Amit Mahajan stayed coercive action against the companies in the interim, after they challenged directions issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ordering them to remove the label and directing food safety officials across India to take enforcement action, including seizure of the products. The court’s relief, however, is limited: it does not permit fresh manufacturing with the “Energy Drink” description. The matter will next be heard on November 5.
The companies have argued that their products are covered by existing licences and that FSSAI’s action was procedurally unfair, while the food regulator has maintained that the descriptor can be misleading because caffeine acts as a stimulant rather than providing nutritional energy.
Court Draws A Line
The High Court’s order provides temporary relief to PepsiCo and Monster over products already manufactured and labelled as “Energy Drink”. Justice Amit Mahajan made the position clear while hearing petitions filed by the two companies against the FSSAI’s directions. “Your existing stocks will be sold,” the court said, effectively protecting products already in circulation from immediate coercive action. However, this protection does not extend to future production.
The companies cannot manufacture additional beverages carrying the disputed descriptor while the interim arrangement remains in force. PepsiCo sells products including Sting Energy and Adrenaline Rush, while Monster markets Monster Energy and Predator Energy in India. The companies had approached the court after FSSAI directed them to drop the “Energy Drink” description and instructed food safety officers to take enforcement action against products bearing the label.
Their lawyers argued that the companies had been operating under relevant food licences and that the regulator’s action could cause significant commercial losses. PepsiCo’s senior counsel Sandeep Sethi also argued that the company’s manufacturing licence permitted the products and said any understanding to discontinue the descriptor had been made under protest. FSSAI, represented by advocate Suransh Chaudhary, told the court that an industry meeting had taken place in July, where participants had agreed to discontinue the descriptor for future production.
Why FSSAI Objected
The dispute centres on whether the term “Energy Drink” accurately describes these beverages and whether the regulator followed the correct procedure in directing companies to remove it. FSSAI has argued that caffeinated beverages are increasingly marketed using language that may give consumers the impression that they provide nutritional energy, enhanced vitality or improved physical performance. According to official sources cited by NDTV, caffeine primarily acts as a stimulant, temporarily increasing alertness and reducing the perception of fatigue.
The regulator has also raised concerns about claims associated with such beverages, including suggestions that they “energise” the body or improve focus, unless such claims are legally supported. At the same time, the companies have pointed to FSSAI’s own March 2024 advisory, which stated that the term “Energy” could be used for products licensed under specific food categories covering carbonated and non-carbonated water-based flavoured drinks.
That earlier advisory was aimed at preventing certain products from being sold online under broad categories such as “Health Drinks” or “Energy Drinks” when they belonged to different food categories. The companies have therefore questioned how the regulator moved from permitting the descriptor in certain circumstances to treating its use as misbranding or misleading.
The High Court has not finally decided that substantive dispute. It has instead granted interim protection while the legal challenge continues. The court also noted concerns over the process followed by FSSAI, with subsequent reporting stating that the orders were passed without show-cause notices or an opportunity for the companies to be heard.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The dispute highlights an important balance between consumer protection, regulatory clarity and the legitimate interests of businesses that have already manufactured products under existing rules. Clear food-labelling standards matter because consumers should be able to understand what they are buying without being misled by marketing language.
At the same time, regulatory action affecting large inventories and established products must follow transparent procedures, give affected companies a meaningful opportunity to respond and provide reasonable clarity about how existing stock should be handled. The Delhi High Court’s interim approach — allowing existing labelled stock to be sold while preventing further production under the disputed description — attempts to maintain that balance until the larger questions are examined.
For consumers, the case is also a reminder to look beyond marketing terms and consider information such as caffeine and sugar content when choosing beverages. For regulators and manufacturers alike, consistency and open dialogue can help prevent confusion while protecting public interest. As the court prepares to hear the matter again on November 5, how do you think India can strike the right balance between stronger consumer protection and fair, predictable rules for food and beverage companies?
Also Read: Gujarat ‘Purification Ritual’ Case: Woman Allegedly Gang-Raped; 9 Arrested
