The Delhi High Court on September 29 set aside the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) order directing Red Bull to remove the term “energy drink” from its labels, marketing and advertisements, after finding that the company was not given an adequate opportunity to respond.
The July 2026 action had also covered Sting, Adrenaline Rush, Campa Gold Boost, Hell Energy and Monster, with companies given 90 days to comply. Justice Amit Mahajan clarified that the ruling was on procedural grounds and did not prevent FSSAI from reconsidering the matter. The regulator can issue a fresh show-cause notice, hear Red Bull and pass a new order in accordance with the law.
Court Flags Due Process
The dispute centres on whether beverages commonly marketed as “energy drinks” can legally use that description in India. FSSAI had said the country does not have a separately notified food standard for an “energy drink” category and had raised concerns over branding and functional claims such as “boost energy levels”, “enhancing focus” and “vitalises body and mind”. In July, the regulator gave six brands 90 days to remove the term from packaging and promotional material.
Red Bull challenged the action, arguing that it had not received a show-cause notice or an opportunity to explain its position before the direction was issued. During the hearing, FSSAI maintained that its communication could itself be treated as a notice and pointed to a subsequent meeting with the company. The High Court, however, held that the company had not been given an opportunity to respond before the order was passed. The court therefore set aside the order on the limited ground of violation of natural justice.
A Dispute Over Labelling
The regulatory action began on July 1, when FSSAI issued notices to Red Bull Energy Drink, PepsiCo’s Adrenaline Rush and Sting, Reliance Consumer Products’ Campa Energy Drink-Gold Boost, Hell Energy and Coca-Cola-backed Monster Energy. The regulator said the food category system was not intended to serve as a basis for product naming or labelling and that certain functional or therapeutic claims were not permissible for food products without the required legal and scientific basis.
The industry subsequently sought relief through the Indian Beverage Association (IBA), with companies arguing that the term “caffeinated beverage”, suggested by FSSAI as an alternative, was too broad and could create confusion for consumers. The industry has also pointed to a 2024 FSSAI communication that, according to Red Bull’s court submissions, had permitted the expression “energy drink” for products licensed under the relevant caffeinated-beverage categories. PepsiCo has separately moved towards removing the word “energy” from Sting to comply with the regulatory direction, while other companies have challenged or opposed aspects of the action.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Regulation of food and beverages directly affects both consumer understanding and businesses that have built products around established labels. FSSAI’s concerns about clear, evidence-based claims deserve consideration, particularly when labels can influence how consumers understand what they are buying. At the same time, the High Court’s emphasis on giving affected parties a fair opportunity to respond highlights why transparent consultation and due process matter in regulatory decisions.
With FSSAI now free to begin the process again through a show-cause notice and hearing, a careful dialogue between the regulator, companies and consumer representatives could help balance public interest with regulatory certainty. How should India balance stronger consumer protection with a fair and transparent process for businesses?
Also Read: ‘Gaddaar Gyanu Must Go’: CJP Announces October 2 ‘Mumbai Chalo’ Protest At Shivaji Park
