The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order preventing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from cancelling ITC Limited’s food business licence over the claims made on its Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta product. The contested claims include “100% Atta,” “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat,” and “0% Maida.” This decision was made in the case of ITC Limited v. Union of India.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma granted temporary relief to ITC, highlighting that the company was facing an August 28 deadline to comply with an improvement notice issued by FSSAI on August 13. The court has scheduled the next hearing for September 9, during which it will also examine whether it possesses territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate ITC’s challenge. Both parties have been instructed to submit concise briefs on the jurisdictional issue.
The legal proceedings stem from a show-cause notice issued on August 10, wherein ITC was accused of violating FSSAI’s advisory dated May 2025. This advisory directs food businesses to cease using the term “100%” on product labels, packaging, and promotional content. Despite ITC being given 30 days to respond to this notice, an improvement notice was issued just three days later, mandating compliance within 15 days.
ITC contends that the issuance of the improvement notice, prior to its response to the show-cause notice, breaches the principles of natural justice. The corporation also disputes the legality of the May 2025 advisory, arguing that FSSAI lacks the authority to enforce a binding prohibition through an advisory without adhering to the standard regulatory processes, including prior publication, approval from the Central government, and parliamentary scrutiny.
ITC further emphasizes that FSSAI has not alleged the presence of maida (refined flour) in the product, nor any ingredient besides atta (whole wheat flour), or wheat sourced outside Madhya Pradesh.
During the hearing, FSSAI contested the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, asserting that the improvement notice originated from its regional authority in Kolkata. FSSAI argued that ITC had a statutory remedy available under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which allows for an appeal process in such situations.
In response, ITC asserted that the issue concerns a central licence, invoking Section 10(5) of the Act. This section stipulates that FSSAI’s Chief Executive Officer, who is located in Delhi, holds the powers of a Commissioner of Food Safety regarding matters linked to the central licensing authority. ITC argued that this establishes a part of the cause of action within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction.
The court has deferred its decision on jurisdiction pending the review of written submissions from both parties. Meanwhile, FSSAI has been restrained from making any decisions regarding the cancellation of ITC’s licence. ITC’s legal representation included Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi and Advocates Rohit Sharma, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, Krisna Gambhir, and Shreya Sethi.
