Full Judgment Text
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 7 February, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 10 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1989/2015
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. Jawahar Lal and Mr. Sayyam
Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Ms.
Priya Dwivedi and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Pandey, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the Petitioner-Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited which is a
company that inter alia , manufactures and markets various FMCG and health
products including Dettol, Harpic and other health care and personal hygiene
products such as soap, hand wash, sanitizer, etc.
3. The challenge in this petition inter alia , is to the amendment in Rule 6
(8) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which was
th
introduced by notification dated 16 June, 2014. In terms of the said
notification, the Director, Legal Metrology mandated as under:-
“(8) Every package containing soap, shampoos,
tooth pastes and other cosmetics and toiletries shall
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
bear at the top of its principal display panel a red or
as the case may be, brown dot for products of non-
vegetarian origin and a green dot products of
vegetarian origin.”
nd
4. Various grounds were raised in the writ petition on 2 March, 2015,
when Notice was issued in this writ petition and an interim order was passed
in the following terms:
“W.P.(C) No.1989/2015
Having regard to the nature of the controversy
involved and keeping in view that the very same
issue is the subject matter of a writ petition pending
before the High Court of Bombay, we are also of the
view that the matter requires consideration.
Hence, Rule DB.
Re-notify on 18.05.2015
CM No.3565/2015 (stay)
It is brought to our notice that in the writ petition
pending before the High Court of Bombay an
interim order has been in operation.
Accordingly, we direct that the respondents shall
not take any coercive action against the petitioner
for non-declaration of the products of the
petitioner of vegetarian or non-vegetarian origin
on the label of the products until further orders.
We make it clear that in case the petitioner does not
succeed in the writ petition, the petitioner shall be
liable for the consequential action.
CM is disposed of.”
5. Accordingly, the writ itself stood admitted.
6. The counter affidavit was filed in the matter and it was directed that the
matter would be listed in the regular board. Thereafter, when the matter was
th
taken up on 15 November, 2025, the counter affidavit was directed to be
brought on record as the same was not on record despite filing the same. On
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
the same day, additional submissions which were filed by Petitioner by way
of an additional affidavit were also taken on record.
7. The submission of Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner is that the Director, Legal Metrology, would not have jurisdiction
in prescribing the requirement for display of a red dot, brown dot or a green
dot for products of vegetarian and non-vegetarian respectively. It is his
submission that the said decision ought to be taken up by the Drug Controller
General of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as the jurisdiction
is lacking being Director, Legal Metrology. It is the submission of Mr.
Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel, that toiletries also come under the definition of
cosmetics.
8. Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel further submits that in the additional
th
affidavit dated 18 December, 2025, the Minutes of Meeting of the Drug
th
Technical Advisory Board (hereinafter, ‘DTAB’ ) meeting dated 16 May,
th
2018 as also 13 April, 2021 have been placed on record which would show
that this very issue was considered by the DTAB and the decision taken there
is set out below:
“ 5.2. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL
TO AMEND DRUGS & COSMETICS RULES,
1945 FOR MANDATING INDICATION OF
RED/BROWN OR GREEN DOT ON EVERY
PACKAGE OF SOAPS, SHAMPOOS,
TOOTHPASTES AND OTHER COSMETICS
AND TOILETRIES FOR NON-VEGETARIAN
OR VEGETARIAN ORIGIN
Board was apprised that, the DTAB in its 79th
meeting held on 16.05.2018 agreed to the proposal
for mandating the indication of green or red /brown
dot on every package of soaps, shampoos, tooth
paste & other cosmetics & toiletries for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
vegetarian/nonvegetarian respectively in the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules. The Board also suggested
taking opinion from stakeholders and public before
taking action in the matter.
Accordingly, a draft notification foramending Rule
148 of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 was
prepared for consideration of the Ministry. In the
mean time, separate Rules, named as the Cosmetic
Rules 2020 for regulation of import and
manufacture of Cosmetics have been published vide
GSR 763(E) dated 15.12.2020. The proposal for
mandating the indication of green or red /brown dot
on every package of soaps, shampoos, tooth paste &
other cosmetics & toiletries for vegetarian/non-
vegetarian respectively under Rule 34 of the
Cosmetics Rules, 2020 may be deliberated in light
of the Cosmetics Rules 2020.
Board after detailed deliberation emphasized that
there is no clarity and system to certify vegetarian
and Non-vegetarian ingredients in the Country.
Hence, the Board did not agree for mandating the
indication of green or red /brown dot on every
package of Cosmetics, as it may complicate the
regulation and add regulatory burden on
stakeholders. Board also opined that, it can be
voluntary and left to the company’s own decision
and accordingly, advisory may be issued for
labeling red/brown or green dot on packages of
soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and other cosmetics
and toiletries for non-vegetarian or vegetarian
origin.”
th
9. A notice dated 10 September, 2021 was also issued in this regard. It
is therefore, the submission of Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel that the notification
of the Director, Legal Metrology deserves to be quashed.
10. Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, ld. CGSC seeks time to take instructions
in respect of the said additional affidavit.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
11. In this writ petition it is noticed that though the matter has been
pending for more than ten years, the issue in respect of whether the reflection
of the Red, Brown or Green dot has to be done or not across the categories of
the products, has not been taken finally. On the one hand the Legal Metrology
Rules prescribe use of the dots mandatorily while the DTAB which advises
the DCGI has made the very same voluntary. There is a clear contradiction in
the stands of both these departments.
12. Some of the products would come within the jurisdiction of the Drug
Controller General of India whereas some products would not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Drug Controller General of India.
13. In the opinion of this Court, prima facie , considering the
th
recommendation of the DTAB and the notice dated 10 September, 2021
which prescribes that the indication of the Red, Brown or Green dot would be
on a voluntary basis, there is a clear conflict between the advice of the DTAB
and the impugned notification of the department of Legal Metrology.
14. There is therefore a need for both these Departments to come together
and to take a decision after holding stakeholder’s consultation as to whether
incorporation of such a dot ought to be mandatory or should it be left to be
implemented voluntarily by the manufacturers/sellers of these products.
15. Since the additional affidavit has clearly relied upon the DTAB’s
advise, it is directed that a joint meeting shall be held between the Director,
Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a
comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at as to the implementation of
incorporation of the Red, Brown and Green dot on packaging of various
products.
16. Let the said meeting be held between the said two Departments and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
officials who shall also require stakeholders to appear before them for giving
their views.
17. In response to the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner, a joint
affidavit shall now be filed by the Drug Controller General of India and the
Director, Legal Metrology. After considering the stand of the said two
Departments, this Court would consider the issues raised in the present matter.
18. Let this joint consultation be undertaken in the next two months and the
joint affidavit shall be filed at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.
19. In order to ensure that there is a formal notice to the Drug Controller
General of India, the DCGI is impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the present
petition.
20. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week
and a copy of the same be given to the ld. Counsel appearing for the Union of
India.
21. Copy of this order shall be communicated by the Registry to the
Director, Legal Metrology and to the Drug Controller General of India on the
following email addresses:-
● dci@nic.in
● ashutosh.agarwal13@nic.in
th
22. List on 27 April, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 7, 2026/ prg/ck
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 7 February, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 10 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 1989/2015
RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. Jawahar Lal and Mr. Sayyam
Maheshwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Ms.
Priya Dwivedi and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Pandey, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India by the Petitioner-Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited which is a
company that inter alia , manufactures and markets various FMCG and health
products including Dettol, Harpic and other health care and personal hygiene
products such as soap, hand wash, sanitizer, etc.
3. The challenge in this petition inter alia , is to the amendment in Rule 6
(8) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which was
th
introduced by notification dated 16 June, 2014. In terms of the said
notification, the Director, Legal Metrology mandated as under:-
“(8) Every package containing soap, shampoos,
tooth pastes and other cosmetics and toiletries shall
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
bear at the top of its principal display panel a red or
as the case may be, brown dot for products of non-
vegetarian origin and a green dot products of
vegetarian origin.”
nd
4. Various grounds were raised in the writ petition on 2 March, 2015,
when Notice was issued in this writ petition and an interim order was passed
in the following terms:
“W.P.(C) No.1989/2015
Having regard to the nature of the controversy
involved and keeping in view that the very same
issue is the subject matter of a writ petition pending
before the High Court of Bombay, we are also of the
view that the matter requires consideration.
Hence, Rule DB.
Re-notify on 18.05.2015
CM No.3565/2015 (stay)
It is brought to our notice that in the writ petition
pending before the High Court of Bombay an
interim order has been in operation.
Accordingly, we direct that the respondents shall
not take any coercive action against the petitioner
for non-declaration of the products of the
petitioner of vegetarian or non-vegetarian origin
on the label of the products until further orders.
We make it clear that in case the petitioner does not
succeed in the writ petition, the petitioner shall be
liable for the consequential action.
CM is disposed of.”
5. Accordingly, the writ itself stood admitted.
6. The counter affidavit was filed in the matter and it was directed that the
matter would be listed in the regular board. Thereafter, when the matter was
th
taken up on 15 November, 2025, the counter affidavit was directed to be
brought on record as the same was not on record despite filing the same. On
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
the same day, additional submissions which were filed by Petitioner by way
of an additional affidavit were also taken on record.
7. The submission of Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner is that the Director, Legal Metrology, would not have jurisdiction
in prescribing the requirement for display of a red dot, brown dot or a green
dot for products of vegetarian and non-vegetarian respectively. It is his
submission that the said decision ought to be taken up by the Drug Controller
General of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as the jurisdiction
is lacking being Director, Legal Metrology. It is the submission of Mr.
Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel, that toiletries also come under the definition of
cosmetics.
8. Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel further submits that in the additional
th
affidavit dated 18 December, 2025, the Minutes of Meeting of the Drug
th
Technical Advisory Board (hereinafter, ‘DTAB’ ) meeting dated 16 May,
th
2018 as also 13 April, 2021 have been placed on record which would show
that this very issue was considered by the DTAB and the decision taken there
is set out below:
“ 5.2. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL
TO AMEND DRUGS & COSMETICS RULES,
1945 FOR MANDATING INDICATION OF
RED/BROWN OR GREEN DOT ON EVERY
PACKAGE OF SOAPS, SHAMPOOS,
TOOTHPASTES AND OTHER COSMETICS
AND TOILETRIES FOR NON-VEGETARIAN
OR VEGETARIAN ORIGIN
Board was apprised that, the DTAB in its 79th
meeting held on 16.05.2018 agreed to the proposal
for mandating the indication of green or red /brown
dot on every package of soaps, shampoos, tooth
paste & other cosmetics & toiletries for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
vegetarian/nonvegetarian respectively in the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules. The Board also suggested
taking opinion from stakeholders and public before
taking action in the matter.
Accordingly, a draft notification foramending Rule
148 of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 was
prepared for consideration of the Ministry. In the
mean time, separate Rules, named as the Cosmetic
Rules 2020 for regulation of import and
manufacture of Cosmetics have been published vide
GSR 763(E) dated 15.12.2020. The proposal for
mandating the indication of green or red /brown dot
on every package of soaps, shampoos, tooth paste &
other cosmetics & toiletries for vegetarian/non-
vegetarian respectively under Rule 34 of the
Cosmetics Rules, 2020 may be deliberated in light
of the Cosmetics Rules 2020.
Board after detailed deliberation emphasized that
there is no clarity and system to certify vegetarian
and Non-vegetarian ingredients in the Country.
Hence, the Board did not agree for mandating the
indication of green or red /brown dot on every
package of Cosmetics, as it may complicate the
regulation and add regulatory burden on
stakeholders. Board also opined that, it can be
voluntary and left to the company’s own decision
and accordingly, advisory may be issued for
labeling red/brown or green dot on packages of
soaps, shampoos, toothpastes and other cosmetics
and toiletries for non-vegetarian or vegetarian
origin.”
th
9. A notice dated 10 September, 2021 was also issued in this regard. It
is therefore, the submission of Mr. Jawaharlal, ld. Counsel that the notification
of the Director, Legal Metrology deserves to be quashed.
10. Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, ld. CGSC seeks time to take instructions
in respect of the said additional affidavit.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
11. In this writ petition it is noticed that though the matter has been
pending for more than ten years, the issue in respect of whether the reflection
of the Red, Brown or Green dot has to be done or not across the categories of
the products, has not been taken finally. On the one hand the Legal Metrology
Rules prescribe use of the dots mandatorily while the DTAB which advises
the DCGI has made the very same voluntary. There is a clear contradiction in
the stands of both these departments.
12. Some of the products would come within the jurisdiction of the Drug
Controller General of India whereas some products would not fall within the
jurisdiction of the Drug Controller General of India.
13. In the opinion of this Court, prima facie , considering the
th
recommendation of the DTAB and the notice dated 10 September, 2021
which prescribes that the indication of the Red, Brown or Green dot would be
on a voluntary basis, there is a clear conflict between the advice of the DTAB
and the impugned notification of the department of Legal Metrology.
14. There is therefore a need for both these Departments to come together
and to take a decision after holding stakeholder’s consultation as to whether
incorporation of such a dot ought to be mandatory or should it be left to be
implemented voluntarily by the manufacturers/sellers of these products.
15. Since the additional affidavit has clearly relied upon the DTAB’s
advise, it is directed that a joint meeting shall be held between the Director,
Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a
comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at as to the implementation of
incorporation of the Red, Brown and Green dot on packaging of various
products.
16. Let the said meeting be held between the said two Departments and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05
officials who shall also require stakeholders to appear before them for giving
their views.
17. In response to the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner, a joint
affidavit shall now be filed by the Drug Controller General of India and the
Director, Legal Metrology. After considering the stand of the said two
Departments, this Court would consider the issues raised in the present matter.
18. Let this joint consultation be undertaken in the next two months and the
joint affidavit shall be filed at least two weeks before the next date of hearing.
19. In order to ensure that there is a formal notice to the Drug Controller
General of India, the DCGI is impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the present
petition.
20. Let the amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week
and a copy of the same be given to the ld. Counsel appearing for the Union of
India.
21. Copy of this order shall be communicated by the Registry to the
Director, Legal Metrology and to the Drug Controller General of India on the
following email addresses:-
● dci@nic.in
● ashutosh.agarwal13@nic.in
th
22. List on 27 April, 2026.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 7, 2026/ prg/ck
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 1989/2015 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:10.02.2026
12:55:05