Reliance Sues FSSAI Over Campa ‘Energy Drink’ Label Ban

Source note (6 October 2026): Reuters reports that it reviewed Reliance Consumer Products’ 1 October petition. The petition is not publicly available, so Lapaas Voice has not independently examined it. Claims about the filing and enforcement below are attributed to Reuters’ original reporting, carried by Business Standard. Its other syndicated copies are not independent confirmations.

Key takeaways

• Reuters reports that Reliance Consumer Products filed a writ petition challenging FSSAI restrictions on marketing its Campa products as “energy drinks.”
• Reuters says the petition is dated October 1 and challenges a June 30 regulatory order.
• Reliance says state authorities have seized its products and e-commerce platforms have been ordered to delist affected beverages.
• The company is seeking to have the FSSAI order quashed.
• PepsiCo and Monster have also challenged the regulator’s action in court.
• Red Bull has already secured relief after the Delhi High Court set aside the FSSAI order against it on procedural grounds.
• FSSAI says the “energy drink” description is problematic because the relevant products do not have a standalone Indian regulatory category and certain functional claims can be misleading.
• India’s rapidly expanding energy-drink market makes the dispute commercially significant for both beverage companies and the regulator.

Reliance takes FSSAI to court over Campa

Reliance Consumer Products, the beverages arm of Reliance Industries, has sued India’s food-safety regulator over restrictions on the use of the term “energy drink” for its Campa-brand beverages.

According to Reuters, which says it reviewed non-public court documents, Reliance filed a writ petition dated October 1 challenging a June 30 order issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

The company wants the regulatory order quashed, arguing that the enforcement action has disrupted its business and damaged its market presence and commercial goodwill.

The dispute is part of a much larger confrontation between India’s food regulator and major beverage companies over how high-caffeine drinks can be labelled and marketed.

Reliance’s legal action follows similar challenges by PepsiCo and Monster Beverage. Red Bull has already won a significant procedural victory after the Delhi High Court set aside the FSSAI order against it.

What did FSSAI object to?

At the centre of the dispute is the phrase “energy drink.”

FSSAI has taken the position that companies cannot simply use the term for high-caffeine beverages where the product does not fall within the applicable regulatory framework for that category.

The regulator has also raised concerns about claims associated with such products, including suggestions that beverages can “vitalise” the body and mind, improve focus or help with general weakness.

In July, FSSAI reportedly told major beverage companies including PepsiCo, Red Bull, Monster, Reliance Consumer Products and Hell Energy to stop using “energy drink” or similar descriptions on affected products.

Companies were given a 90-day period to make the required changes.

The regulator’s action has triggered an unusually broad confrontation with some of the world’s largest beverage businesses.

Why Campa is affected

Reliance brought the Campa brand back into the Indian market in 2023 after acquiring the iconic beverage brand.

The company has subsequently used its extensive retail distribution network and aggressive pricing to challenge established players such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

Campa Energy has become part of that expansion strategy.

The dispute with FSSAI therefore has significance beyond a simple packaging change.

Removing the words “energy drink” from a product can affect how consumers identify the beverage, how retailers categorise it and how the company markets it.

For a relatively new product competing against established energy-drink brands, that distinction can be commercially important.

Reliance’s court petition argues that the enforcement actions have already caused substantial disruption to its operations.

Reliance says stock has been seized

One of the more significant claims in Reliance’s petition concerns enforcement at the state level.

According to the filing, state authorities have seized Reliance’s affected stock.

The company also says e-commerce platforms have been instructed to delist the products.

That potentially creates a much bigger commercial impact than simply changing labels on future production.

If existing bottles and cans already in warehouses, distribution centres and retail stores cannot be sold under the disputed description, companies face the possibility of relabelling, recalling or otherwise managing inventory.

For Reliance, which has been building Campa’s presence through a large physical and digital retail network, interruptions at multiple points in the distribution chain could increase the cost of compliance.

The company has therefore asked the court to intervene against the FSSAI order.

Reliance is not alone

The Campa case is the latest development in a broader legal fight.

PepsiCo India and Monster Beverage have already approached courts challenging FSSAI’s restrictions.

PepsiCo has argued that the regulator’s action could have serious commercial consequences and affect substantial investments.

The scale of the existing inventory illustrates the problem.

According to reporting on PepsiCo’s court filing, approximately 492 million bottles and 26 million cans carrying the disputed labels were in circulation as of July 31.

Monster has raised similar procedural objections and has argued that it was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to respond before the regulatory action.

The companies are therefore challenging not only the commercial consequences of the order but also the process through which the regulator reached its decision.

Red Bull has already secured court relief

The legal landscape became more complicated after the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Red Bull.

On September 29, the court set aside an FSSAI order requiring Red Bull India to stop using the term “energy drink,” as The Indian Express reported from the proceedings.

However, the ruling did not decide whether Red Bull’s product actually violates India’s food-safety rules.

Instead, the court found a procedural problem: FSSAI had issued the adverse direction without first giving Red Bull an adequate opportunity to respond.

The court directed the regulator to reconsider the matter after issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the company.

That distinction is important.

The judgment does not establish that FSSAI has no authority to regulate the use of the “energy drink” description. It establishes that the regulator must follow the appropriate procedure before taking adverse action against the company.

The decision could nevertheless strengthen the arguments of other beverage manufacturers challenging similar orders.

What does Indian food law say about caffeinated beverages?

India does have specific standards governing caffeinated beverages.

FSSAI’s published regulations prescribe requirements for carbonated and non-carbonated caffeinated beverages, including caffeine limits and labelling requirements.

The relevant standards specify total caffeine of between 145 mg and 300 mg per litre for the covered category.

They also include a declaration that consumers should not consume more than 500 ml per day.

This creates an important distinction in the current dispute.

The existence of standards for caffeinated beverages does not necessarily mean that every beverage can automatically use “energy drink” as its product description in every marketing context.

FSSAI’s position is that companies must use descriptions consistent with the applicable food regulations and must not make misleading functional or therapeutic claims.

The regulator’s 2024 advisory also clarified that “Health Drink” is not a defined or standardised category under India’s food law.

It said the term “Energy” could be used for products licensed under specified categories of carbonated and non-carbonated water-based flavoured drinks that meet the applicable caffeinated-beverage standard.

That earlier position makes the current dispute particularly significant because the regulator’s 2026 enforcement appears to be targeting the way certain high-caffeine products are being described and marketed.

Why the regulator is taking a tougher approach

The FSSAI action comes amid a broader food-safety enforcement push.

The regulator has increasingly focused on whether product descriptions give consumers an inaccurate impression about what a food or beverage does.

Energy drinks occupy a sensitive area because they can contain significant amounts of caffeine, sugar and other ingredients such as taurine.

Health concerns surrounding high caffeine consumption have also increased regulatory scrutiny in several countries.

For FSSAI, the issue is therefore not merely branding.

The regulator’s argument is that consumers should be able to understand what they are purchasing without being influenced by descriptions that imply functional or health benefits that the product cannot substantiate.

For beverage companies, however, “energy drink” has become a commercially established category.

That creates the central conflict.

The market is growing rapidly

The timing of the dispute is important because India’s energy-drinks market is expanding quickly.

Reuters, citing Euromonitor data, reported that retail sales in India are growing at about 12.6% annually, faster than growth in the United States and China.

The market is projected to reach approximately $1.6 billion by 2028.

That growth makes the label particularly valuable.

The category is attracting major multinational companies as well as Indian consumer-goods businesses looking for faster-growing beverage segments.

For Reliance, Campa Energy provides another opportunity to use its distribution infrastructure to compete with global brands.

A regulatory restriction on the category’s most recognisable descriptor could therefore influence the competitive dynamics of the entire market.

The business impact goes beyond packaging

Changing the label on a beverage might appear straightforward.

In reality, a major consumer brand can have millions of units across factories, warehouses, distributors, retailers and online marketplaces.

Companies also have advertising campaigns, point-of-sale material and digital listings built around established product names.

If regulators require those descriptions to change rapidly, businesses may face costs associated with new packaging, inventory management, advertising changes and distribution adjustments.

The companies’ legal arguments therefore focus heavily on commercial disruption.

FSSAI, meanwhile, has maintained that the companies have had a compliance period and that the products must follow India’s existing food regulations.

The disagreement is consequently about both regulatory authority and implementation.

The 90-day deadline has intensified the dispute

FSSAI’s 90-day compliance period has become another source of tension.

Beverage companies have argued that they need more time to manage existing inventory and packaging.

Reuters reported in August that the industry had sought a much longer transition period, with companies concerned about millions of cans and bottles already in circulation or in production pipelines.

The regulator rejected calls for a one-year extension.

A government source cited by Reuters said state authorities believed existing stocks could be cleared within 60 to 90 days.

Companies have disputed the practicality of such a rapid transition, particularly given the volume of inventory spread across India’s distribution network.

This is one reason the legal challenges could have substantial commercial consequences.

What happens to Campa Energy now?

The immediate question is whether Reliance will receive judicial relief against the FSSAI action while its challenge is considered.

The company is seeking to have the regulator’s order quashed.

The court will have to consider the legal and procedural arguments raised by Reliance, along with the regulator’s authority to impose the restrictions.

The Red Bull ruling may be relevant because it demonstrated that procedural fairness can be decisive in these cases.

However, Reliance cannot automatically assume that the Red Bull outcome will apply identically to its case.

The court will examine the specific regulatory order, notices, proceedings and circumstances involving Reliance.

What the dispute means for consumers

For consumers, the immediate impact could be changes to product names, packaging and online listings.

A beverage currently sold as an “energy drink” may eventually appear under a different description depending on how the courts and FSSAI resolve the dispute.

The underlying formulation is a separate issue.

A change in the marketing description does not necessarily mean that the beverage’s ingredients or caffeine content have changed.

Consumers should therefore look at the nutrition panel and caffeine information rather than relying solely on the front-of-pack category description.

FSSAI’s broader objective is to make such information clearer and prevent potentially misleading claims.

The bigger picture

The Campa dispute is becoming a test of how India’s food regulator balances consumer protection with established commercial practices.

FSSAI has a legitimate regulatory interest in preventing food and beverage companies from making descriptions or claims that could mislead consumers.

At the same time, companies such as Reliance, PepsiCo, Monster and Red Bull argue that sudden restrictions on a commercially established category can cause significant business disruption, particularly when products and packaging have already been produced at scale.

The legal battles will therefore determine more than whether a few beverage brands can retain the words “energy drink.”

They could establish how FSSAI must exercise its enforcement powers, how much procedural protection companies receive before adverse orders are issued, and how existing product inventories should be handled when regulatory interpretations change.

For Reliance, the stakes are particularly important because Campa is central to its broader ambition of challenging multinational consumer brands through a combination of pricing, distribution and retail reach.

Looking ahead

The immediate focus will be on the court proceedings involving Reliance and the other beverage companies. The Red Bull judgment has already forced FSSAI to reconsider at least one case through a process that gives the company an opportunity to respond, while the PepsiCo, Monster and Reliance challenges could further test the regulator’s approach.

The larger outcome will determine whether India’s fast-growing energy-drink industry can continue using its established category language or will have to redesign how these products are marketed. Whatever the courts decide, the case demonstrates that food labelling has become a significant competitive and regulatory issue in India’s rapidly expanding packaged-beverage market.