The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to ITC Ltd in its dispute with the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over “100%” claims used on Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta. The court has directed the food regulator not to take any decision to cancel ITC’s food business license for now, while it considers the company’s challenge to FSSAI’s notices and advisory on absolute claims. The next hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2026.
The dispute centers on claims including “100% Atta,” “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” and “0% Maida” appearing on the product’s labels and advertising. FSSAI had directed ITC to remove these claims and submit a compliance report within 15 days, warning that failure to comply could result in suspension of its license. ITC has challenged both the regulator’s approach and the legal basis of the May 2025 advisory that asked food businesses to discontinue the use of “100%” claims.
Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To ITC
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma granted interim protection to ITC after the company approached the Delhi High Court challenging FSSAI’s advisory and subsequent notices.
The court has not ruled on whether ITC’s use of the claims is legally permissible. Instead, it has temporarily prevented FSSAI from taking a decision to cancel the company’s license while the court considers preliminary issues, including whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
ITC-FSSAI Dispute At A Glance
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Company | ITC Ltd |
| Brand | Aashirvaad |
| Product | Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta |
| Regulator | FSSAI |
| Disputed claims | “100% Atta”, “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”, “0% Maida” |
| FSSAI advisory | May 28, 2025 |
| Show-cause notice | August 10, 2026 |
| Improvement notice | August 13, 2026 |
| Compliance period | 15 days |
| License action | Temporarily restrained |
| Next hearing | September 9, 2026 |
| Key unresolved issue | Delhi HC jurisdiction |
The interim order means the immediate threat of license cancellation has been put on hold, but the underlying dispute remains unresolved.
What Claims Did FSSAI Object To?
The regulator objected to the use of absolute percentage claims on Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta.
The product label reportedly carried claims including “100% Atta & 100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat”, while an advertisement stated that the product was made from “100% MP Wheat only.” FSSAI also directed ITC to remove the “0% Maida” claim.
The regulator’s position is that such absolute claims can potentially create a misleading impression about a food product’s purity or superiority.
Claims Under Dispute
| Claim | Where Used | FSSAI’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| “100% Atta” | Product label | Objected to |
| “100% Madhya Pradesh Wheat” | Product label | Objected to |
| “0% Maida” | Product label | Removal directed |
| “Made from 100% MP Wheat only” | Advertisement | Objected to |
ITC, however, has argued that the notices do not allege that the product actually contains maida, uses ingredients other than whole wheat flour or contains wheat sourced from outside Madhya Pradesh.
How The Dispute Started
The regulatory dispute dates back to May 2025, when FSSAI issued an advisory asking food business operators to discontinue the use of “100%” on food product labels, packaging and promotional content.
FSSAI’s concern was that the term could create an exaggerated impression of purity or quality even where the underlying product complied with ingredient requirements.
More than a year later, the regulator initiated specific action against ITC over its Aashirvaad product.
Timeline Of The ITC-FSSAI Dispute
May 28, 2025
FSSAI issues advisory on “100%” claims
↓
August 10, 2026
Show-cause notice to ITC
↓
30 days given to respond
↓
August 13, 2026
Improvement notice issued
↓
15-day compliance deadline
↓
ITC approaches Delhi HC
↓
August 25, 2026
Court grants interim protection
↓
September 9, 2026
Next hearingThe timing of the notices is one of the central issues raised by ITC before the court.
ITC Challenges FSSAI’s May 2025 Advisory
ITC has challenged the legal validity of the May 2025 advisory itself.
The company argues that FSSAI cannot effectively introduce a binding restriction through an advisory without following the statutory procedure applicable to framing regulations.
According to ITC’s submissions, food businesses are governed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, along with its rules and regulations, and an advisory issued outside that framework should not create an independent legal prohibition.
ITC’s Main Legal Arguments
| Issue | ITC’s Position |
|---|---|
| “100%” advisory | Cannot create a binding prohibition by itself |
| Existing regulations | Do not expressly prohibit the claims, according to ITC |
| Show-cause notice | Company was given 30 days to respond |
| Improvement notice | Issued only three days after show-cause notice |
| Natural justice | ITC says it was not given adequate opportunity |
| Product composition | No allegation of maida or non-MP wheat |
| License suspension | ITC calls the threatened action disproportionate |
The court has not accepted these arguments on merits at this stage.
FSSAI Questions Delhi HC’s Jurisdiction
Another major issue in the case concerns territorial jurisdiction.
FSSAI has argued that the latest improvement notice was issued by its regional authority in Kolkata, and therefore questioned whether the Delhi High Court should hear ITC’s challenge.
The regulator has also pointed to an alternative legal remedy under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
ITC has disputed that position.
Jurisdictional Dispute
FSSAI Position
↓
Improvement Notice Issued In Kolkata
↓
Delhi HC Should Not Hear The Case
VS.
ITC Position
↓
Dispute Concerns Central Licence
↓
FSSAI CEO Has Relevant Powers
↓
CEO Based In Delhi
↓
Part Of Cause Of Action In DelhiThe Delhi High Court has asked both sides to submit written notes on the jurisdiction question before deciding the issue.
Why The August Improvement Notice Matters
The August 13 improvement notice instructed ITC to remove the disputed claims from labels, advertisements and websites.
The company was given 15 days to submit a compliance report.
Failure to comply could have resulted in suspension of its FSSAI license, creating a significant operational and commercial risk for the company and the Aashirvaad brand.
ITC argued that the improvement notice was issued before the 30-day response period under the August 10 show-cause notice had expired.
The company described the action as effectively a final prohibition despite the fact that it had not yet been given the full opportunity to respond to the allegations.
ITC Says The Product Is Single-Ingredient Atta
One of ITC’s arguments concerns the actual composition of Aashirvaad M.P. Chakki Atta.
The company has maintained that the product is a single-ingredient wheat flour product, with whole wheat listed as its ingredient.
ITC has also said there is no allegation that the product contains maida or wheat sourced outside Madhya Pradesh.
This distinction is central to the company’s challenge.
ITC’s argument is not simply that the product is compliant; it is also challenging whether the regulator can prohibit an absolute claim through an advisory without following the formal regulatory process.
What Does “100%” Mean In Food Advertising?
The dispute raises a wider question for India’s food industry: Can food companies use absolute claims such as “100%” when describing the composition or purity of a product?
FSSAI’s May 2025 advisory sought to discourage such claims.
The regulator’s concern is that “100%” can create an impression of exceptional purity or superiority that may not necessarily be meaningful to consumers under food-labeling rules.
Why Absolute Claims Are Sensitive
| Claim Type | Potential Consumer Interpretation |
|---|---|
| “100% Atta” | Entire product is atta |
| “100% Wheat” | Product contains only wheat |
| “100% Natural” | Product has no artificial elements |
| “100% Pure” | Product is completely free from impurities |
| “0% Maida” | No refined flour present |
The legal question is whether such language should be regulated through formal regulations, existing labeling provisions or administrative advisories.
The Case Could Affect India’s FMCG Industry
The ITC dispute has implications beyond one atta brand.
FSSAI has increasingly focused on food labeling, advertising and claims that could potentially mislead consumers.
If the regulator’s approach is upheld, food companies may need to review thousands of product labels and advertisements using absolute or superiority claims.
If ITC succeeds in challenging the advisory’s legal basis, it could limit how FSSAI implements similar restrictions through advisories.
Potential Industry Impact
| Area | Possible Impact |
|---|---|
| Food labels | Greater scrutiny |
| Advertising | More compliance reviews |
| “100%” claims | Increased regulatory uncertainty |
| Product packaging | Potential redesigns |
| Existing inventory | Possible write-off risk if changes required |
| E-commerce listings | Greater monitoring |
| FMCG companies | Higher compliance costs |
The case could therefore become an important reference point for India’s packaged-food industry.
ITC Warned Of Commercial And Reputational Harm
ITC told the court that immediate removal of the claims could have significant commercial consequences.
The company argued that its products could be delisted from e-commerce platforms, while existing packaging and finished stock could potentially need to be withdrawn or destroyed.
For a large FMCG company, packaging changes can be expensive because products are manufactured and distributed across a wide network.
Potential Commercial Consequences
Regulatory Direction
↓
Remove Claims
↓
New Packaging
+
Advertising Changes
+
E-commerce Updates
↓
Existing Stock Risk
↓
Potential Delisting
↓
Commercial + Reputational CostsThe interim protection therefore provides ITC with time while the legal questions are considered.
Aashirvaad Is A Major ITC Consumer Brand
Aashirvaad is one of ITC’s most prominent consumer brands and has a significant presence in India’s packaged wheat-flour market.
The dispute therefore has a higher profile than a case involving a small food manufacturer.
Any requirement to redesign packaging or change advertising could have implications across distribution channels.
However, the current court order does not constitute a final ruling that ITC can continue using the claims indefinitely.
It simply prevents FSSAI from taking a decision to cancel the license while the court considers the case.
FSSAI Has Stepped Up Action On Food Claims
The ITC case comes amid increased regulatory attention toward food advertisements and labeling.
Business Standard reported that FSSAI has stepped up enforcement against misleading claims, including action involving food manufacturers and e-commerce platforms.
Another company, Dabur, has also challenged FSSAI action concerning claims such as “100% Pure,” “100% Natural,” “100% Purity Guaranteed” and “100% Organic.”
This suggests the dispute could become part of a broader legal debate over the regulator’s treatment of absolute marketing claims.
Another Case Involves Fortune Soya Oil
The Delhi High Court also considered a separate petition involving AWL Agri Business, which received FSSAI notices over claims on its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil.
The disputed claims included “100% Veg” and “Cholesterol Free – For Healthy Lifestyle.” Justice Sharma said an order on the maintainability of that petition would be passed on August 31.
The parallel case indicates that questions around food labeling and advertising are expanding beyond atta.
Recent Regulatory Disputes
| Company | Product / Claim | Legal Issue |
|---|---|---|
| ITC | Aashirvaad atta | “100% Atta”, “100% MP Wheat”, “0% Maida” |
| AWL Agri Business | Fortune Soya Oil | “100% Veg”, “Cholesterol Free” |
| Dabur | Food products | “100% Pure”, “100% Natural”, others |
The outcomes could help clarify how far FSSAI can go in regulating marketing language through advisories and enforcement notices.
What Happens On September 9?
The next hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2026.
The court is expected to consider the jurisdiction issue and the parties’ submissions regarding the maintainability of ITC’s petition.
The broader challenge to FSSAI’s advisory and notices will also remain before the court.
Key Dates
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| May 28, 2025 | FSSAI advisory on “100%” claims |
| August 10, 2026 | Show-cause notice to ITC |
| August 13, 2026 | Improvement notice |
| August 25, 2026 | Delhi HC grants interim protection |
| August 28, 2026 | Improvement-notice compliance period cited in proceedings |
| September 9, 2026 | Next hearing |
The court’s eventual decision on jurisdiction will determine whether ITC’s challenge proceeds in Delhi.
What It Means For Consumers
For consumers, the case highlights the importance of understanding what food-label claims actually communicate.
Terms such as “100%,” “pure,” “natural” and “zero” can sound definitive, but their regulatory meaning may vary depending on the product and applicable rules.
The dispute also shows why food regulators scrutinize marketing claims even when the underlying product may not necessarily be alleged to contain an adulterant or prohibited ingredient.
What It Means For ITC
For ITC, the interim order removes the immediate risk of license cancellation.
The company can now continue contesting the regulator’s action while the court examines jurisdiction and the legal validity of the advisory.
However, the company still faces uncertainty over the eventual status of the disputed claims.
If the court ultimately upholds FSSAI’s position, ITC may have to modify packaging and promotional material for the product.
The Bigger Picture
The ITC-FSSAI dispute is becoming an important test of how India’s food regulator can control absolute marketing claims. FSSAI’s May 2025 advisory asked food businesses to discontinue “100%” claims on labels, packaging and promotional content, while ITC argues that such an advisory cannot create a binding prohibition without following the statutory process for framing regulations. The Delhi High Court has not yet decided the merits of either position, but has temporarily prevented FSSAI from canceling ITC’s food business license.
The case also has broader implications for the FMCG sector. If regulators can enforce restrictions on absolute claims through advisories and improvement notices, companies may need to reassess packaging and advertising across large product portfolios. At the same time, the court will need to consider whether the regulatory action followed due process, including ITC’s argument that an improvement notice was issued only three days after a show-cause notice that gave the company 30 days to respond.
Looking Ahead
The immediate focus is the September 9 hearing, when the Delhi High Court is expected to further consider whether it has jurisdiction to hear ITC’s challenge. FSSAI has argued that the relevant improvement notice was issued by its Kolkata authority and that ITC has an alternative statutory remedy. ITC, meanwhile, maintains that the matter concerns a central license and that part of the cause of action arises in Delhi because of the role of FSSAI’s Chief Executive Officer.
Beyond ITC, the outcome could influence how food companies respond to claims such as “100%,” “pure,” “natural” and “zero.” With other FMCG companies including Dabur and AWL Agri Business also facing disputes over similar labeling or advertising claims, the courts’ interpretation of FSSAI’s powers could have a lasting impact on food packaging, advertising practices and regulatory compliance across India’s consumer-goods industry
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
