The Delhi High Court said it was “disinclined” to interfere with FSSAI’s decision, “particularly in light of the harmful effect and adverse health consequences of consumption of the offending products by those in need of ORS”. File | Photo credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) decision to ban the use of the word “ORS” (oral rehydration solution) in the name of any fruit, non-carbonated or ready-to-drink beverages.
The court said the measures taken by the FSSAI were prompted by “serious public health considerations” and were regulatory in nature and applicable to the entire food industry.
Justice Sachin Datta issued the order on October 31, dismissing the petition of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. challenging the FSSAI directive restricting the use of the designation ‘ORS’ for its Rebalanz VITORS brand of oral rehydration solution.
On 14 October 2025, FSSAI issued an order withdrawing all previous permissions to food and beverage companies to use the term “ORS” in product names or branding unless they meet the standard medical formulation.
The following day, on October 15, FSSAI issued another clarification saying that the previous practice of brands using “ORS” on food labels as part of a trademark – whether prefixed or suffixed – was “misleading to customers through false, misleading, ambiguous and erroneous declarations of the name/designation”.
The apex court said it was “not inclined” to interfere with FSSAI’s decision, “particularly in light of the harmful effect and adverse health consequences in case of consumption of the offending products by those in need of ORS”.
During the proceedings, the legal representative of the pharmaceutical company informed that it had stopped producing fresh stocks of its products. It also said that the company is willing to relabel or relabel its existing stocks or stocks of affected food products and that stocks that were already in the supply chain can be sold to avoid irreparable and huge losses.
However, the court said that it is not inclined to issue any direction in this regard, except to direct the regulator to consider this aspect of the matter for submissions from the petitioner.
Published – November 3, 2025 10:53 PM IST
