The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to ITC in its legal dispute with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the use of “100 per cent” claims on Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta.
The court has directed the food regulator not to cancel ITC’s food licence for the time being while it considers whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to hear the company’s challenge.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order on Tuesday while hearing ITC’s petition against FSSAI advisories and notices concerning claims made on the packaging and advertising of Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta.
The matter has gained attention because it involves the wider regulatory debate over the use of “100%” claims on food products and how such claims should be presented to consumers.
The case will be heard again on September 9.
Delhi High Court Gives ITC Interim Protection
The immediate issue before the Delhi High Court was whether FSSAI could proceed with action against ITC’s food licence while the court was still considering a preliminary question about its jurisdiction.
FSSAI had objected to claims associated with Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta, including references to “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” on the product label.
The regulator also raised objections to promotional material carrying the claim “Made from 1005 M.P Wheat only”.
FSSAI subsequently directed ITC to remove references to “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” and “0% Maida” from the product’s labels and advertisements.
ITC challenged the regulatory action before the court.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Sharma noted that the jurisdiction issue was yet to be decided. Since the courts would remain closed, the judge granted protection to ITC until the next hearing.
“Since the issue regarding jurisdiction is to be decided and the courts will be closed, till the next date of hearing, no decision regarding cancellation of the licence will be taken,” Justice Sharma said.
As a result, FSSAI cannot cancel ITC’s licence before the matter comes up again on September 9.
What Is the Dispute Over Aashirvaad Atta Claims?
The dispute centres on the wording used on the packaging and in advertisements for Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta.
FSSAI objected to claims that presented the product as “100% Atta” and “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”. The regulator also questioned the use of “0% Maida” in the product’s labelling and promotional material.
The issue is linked to a broader FSSAI advisory issued in May 2025. The advisory asked food business operators to discontinue the use of “100%” on food product labels, packaging and promotional material.
The regulator’s position has implications beyond a single brand because similar claims are used across the food industry to communicate product composition, ingredients and quality to consumers.
For ITC, however, the immediate concern is the regulatory action against its Aashirvaad product and the possibility of action against its food licence.
FSSAI Had Asked ITC to Explain Its Position
FSSAI later issued a fresh notice to ITC on August 10.
The company was asked to explain within 30 days why action should not be taken against it for allegedly failing to comply with the regulator’s advisory.
Three days later, on August 13, the Central Licensing Authority in Kolkata issued an improvement notice to ITC concerning the Aashirvaad product.
The notice directed the company to remove the claim or term “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” from the product’s labels and advertisements.
It also directed the removal of “0% Maida” from the product’s labels and promotional material.
The company was given 15 days to submit a compliance report. Failure to comply could have resulted in action against its FSSAI licence.
ITC subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the regulatory action.
ITC Questions Timing of FSSAI Action
One of ITC’s key arguments concerns the timing of the improvement notice.
The company has argued that the improvement notice was issued before the expiry of the 30-day period that it had been given to respond to the earlier FSSAI notice.
According to ITC, the subsequent action effectively moved towards a final restriction even though the company still had time to respond to the allegations.
The company has also described the improvement notice as non-speaking and mechanical, alleging that it was issued without proper application of mind.
ITC has further argued that the threat of suspension or cancellation of its FSSAI licence was arbitrary and disproportionate.
These arguments will now have to be considered alongside the jurisdictional objection raised by FSSAI.
FSSAI Challenges Delhi High Court’s Jurisdiction
During the hearing, FSSAI’s counsel questioned whether the Delhi High Court was the appropriate forum to hear ITC’s petition.
The regulator argued that the latest improvement notice had been issued in Kolkata.
This has created a separate legal question for the court: whether ITC can challenge the regulatory action before the Delhi High Court when the relevant notice was issued by the Central Licensing Authority in Kolkata.
The court has not yet settled that issue.
Because the jurisdiction question remains pending, the court has provided temporary protection to ITC rather than deciding the wider dispute at this stage.
The September 9 hearing is therefore expected to be important for determining how the case proceeds.
Why the ‘100%’ Food Labelling Issue Matters
The case is significant because the dispute is not limited to the wording on one packet of atta.
FSSAI’s May 2025 advisory sought to discourage food businesses from using “100%” claims on food labels, packaging and promotional material.
Such claims can influence how consumers understand a product. Terms such as “100% Atta”, “100% wheat” or “0% Maida” may be interpreted as statements about the product’s composition or purity.
The regulator’s scrutiny therefore reflects a broader focus on how food products are described and marketed.
For companies, the issue also raises questions about how far regulatory authorities can go in directing changes to labels and advertisements and what process must be followed before action is taken against a food business licence.
The ITC case could offer further clarity on these questions.
AWL Agri Business Faces a Similar FSSAI Dispute
The Aashirvaad case is not the only legal challenge involving FSSAI’s approach to food-related claims.
AWL Agri Business Limited, which sells Fortune-branded products, has also approached the court after receiving FSSAI notices concerning claims made on Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil.
Those notices relate to label declarations and marketing claims, including “100% Veg” and “Cholesterol Free – For Healthy Lifestyle”.
Latest Articles
Nepal Flash Flood: 105 Indians Among 384 Travellers Listed Missing in Rasuwa
At least 384 travellers, including 105 Indian nationals, have been listed as missing after a flash flood surged…
Read More →
Fixing Schools Is Not Enough: Time to End Commission Practices in Education
Campaigns such as “Fix the Schools” are drawing attention to the condition of India’s education system. The focus…
Read More →
ED Summons Former Punjab Chief Secretary Anurag Verma, Re-Summons IAS Officer Kanwal Preet Brar in Suntec City Case
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned former Punjab Chief Secretary Anurag Verma in connection with its ongoing investigation…
Read More →Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has said that an order concerning the maintainability of the separate AWL petition would be issued on August 31.
The outcome of that matter could provide additional clarity on the legal challenges surrounding FSSAI’s action against claims used on food products.
What Happens Next in the ITC Case?
For now, ITC has received temporary protection from cancellation of its FSSAI licence.
The Delhi High Court has not ruled on whether the claims used by ITC on Aashirvaad M.P Chakki Atta comply with FSSAI requirements. It has also not finally decided whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to hear the company’s petition.
Those questions remain open.
The next hearing is scheduled for September 9, when the court is expected to consider the matter further.
Until then, FSSAI cannot take a decision to cancel ITC’s licence in connection with the disputed Aashirvaad claims.
The case could ultimately have wider implications for food companies that use percentage-based claims in product packaging and advertising, particularly as regulators continue to examine how such language affects consumer understanding.
Also Read: Pankaj Singh’s Untold 2007 Election Story from Pokhara, Haidergarh
For ITC, the immediate relief means the company can continue to contest FSSAI’s action while the court considers the jurisdictional issue. For the food industry, meanwhile, the proceedings could help define the limits of regulatory action over claims such as “100%” and “0%” on packaged food products.