Delhi High Court stays FSSAI’s action against Enerzal ‘electrolyte’ labels for eight months due to lack of improvement notice

FDC Limited manufactures and markets the hydration and electrolyte beverage “Enerzal” and held an FSSAI licence renewed most recently on 28 January 2026.

Since 2018, its label described the product as an “Energy and Electrolyte Drink”.

On 26 May 2026, FSSAI issued a notice directing the petitioner to cease using the descriptors “electrolyte”, “electrolyte drink”, or similar terms, and circulated the notice to State/UT Food Safety Authorities and Central Licensing Authorities.

Following the notice, Maharashtra Food Safety Officers conducted searches and seized Enerzal stock from the petitioner’s premises and stockist locations, cumulatively valued at approximately ₹1.12 crore.

The petitioner contended that no improvement notice or show-cause notice under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“FSS Act”) had been issued before the seizures.

The Court considered only the petitioner’s application for interim relief.

Whether interim relief should be granted against the operation and implementation of the FSSAI notice dated 26 May 2026, pending adjudication of the writ petition

Whether the petitioner should be granted time to exhaust its existing stock bearing the disputed “electrolyte” descriptors and modify its labels, particularly when no improvement notice under Section 32 of the FSS Act had been issued

Whether further coercive action, including seizure or destruction of the petitioner’s products, should be restrained during the interim period

The Court considered Section 18(1)(a) of the FSS Act, which requires the food regulator to endeavour to protect human life and health and consumer interests, including fair practices in food trade, with reference to food-safety standards.

It also considered Section 32, which contemplates issuance of an improvement notice in cases of non-compliance, and Section 38, under which Food Safety Officers may conduct searches and seizures.

The respondents relied on Food Category 14.1.4.2 and Regulation 2.3.10 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, governing thermally processed fruit beverages, fruit drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages.

The Court’s interim approach was principally guided by the undisputed procedural fact that no improvement notice under Section 32 had been served before coercive action was taken.

The Court did not decide the legality of the disputed descriptors, the validity of the FSSAI notice, or the legality of the seizures on merits.

It noted that the respondents did not dispute that an improvement notice under Section 32 had not been issued to the petitioner.

Although the respondents asserted that the notice was part of a uniform regulatory exercise under Section 18(1)(a), followed stakeholder consultation, and was supported by the Scientific Panel’s view that the descriptors could not be used for products in the relevant food category, these matters were left open for final adjudication.

Given the absence of the statutory improvement notice and the petitioner’s request for a limited period to transition its packaging, the Court found it appropriate to grant limited interim protection without entering into the merits.

The petitioner’s statement that it would exhaust all existing stock within that period and make the required changes to its labels was recorded and made the basis of the order.

The interim application was accordingly disposed of.

The Court did not finally quash the notice, declare the seizures illegal, or expressly direct release of the seized stock; the writ petition was directed to be listed on 10 December 2026.