Delhi HC restrains FSSAI action against Emami’s Healthy & Tasty oils

MUMBAI: Emami’s edible oil branding has found itself in a legal hot spot, with the Delhi High Court stepping in to prevent the food regulator from turning up the heat on the company for now. The court has restrained the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from taking any precipitative action against Emami Agrotech over its “Emami Healthy & Tasty” brand, questioning, at a preliminary stage, how the regulator concluded that the terminology could mislead consumers.

Justice Amit Mahajan passed the interim order on Thursday while hearing Emami Agrotech’s challenge to a show-cause notice issued by the FSSAI on 5 June. According to Bar and Bench, the court made a prima facie observation that the notice did not explain how the company’s use of the words “Healthy & Tasty” was misleading. The matter is scheduled to be heard next in February.

The dispute concerns edible oils sold under the Healthy & Tasty portfolio, including sunflower oil and kachchi ghani mustard oil. The FSSAI had alleged that the products’ labels and advertisements could mislead consumers and violate food advertising and labelling regulations. The central question is whether the branding creates an impression that the regulator considers inconsistent with the rules governing food products.

The court’s interim protection is significant for Emami because the dispute extends beyond the original notice. The company has also challenged a subsequent FSSAI letter dated 17 July, which directed food safety commissioners across states and Union Territories to take enforcement action against listed food business operators, including Emami.

Emami submitted its response to the show-cause notice on 23 June. However, the company alleged that the regulator had not communicated a decision on its reply before issuing the July letter. It argued that the subsequent directions were arbitrary and unlawful because they were issued without an independent assessment of its products, proper consideration of its response or an opportunity for a hearing.

According to the company’s petition, the July letter had wider consequences, prompting authorities across states and Union Territories to initiate proceedings and take action in connection with its business and products. Emami contended that some of these actions were being pursued without following due process.

“The Impugned Letter issued by Respondent No. 4 has resulted in several authorities across various state and union territories initiating proceedings,” the company argued in its petition.

Emami has also invoked Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing that the actions violate its fundamental rights. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 19(1)(g) protects the freedom to practise a profession or carry on a trade or business. The company’s challenge therefore covers both the regulator’s assessment of its branding and the manner in which enforcement directions were issued.

The case brings the language used on packaged food products under scrutiny, particularly when a brand name combines a health-related claim with an appeal to taste. Terms such as “Healthy” can raise questions about the impression created for consumers, while regulators have a role in ensuring that food labels and advertisements comply with applicable standards. In this instance, however, the High Court’s preliminary observation focused on the explanation provided in the show-cause notice.

That distinction is important. The court has not delivered a final verdict on whether the Healthy & Tasty branding violates food safety or advertising regulations. Nor does the interim order amount to a final finding that the FSSAI’s concerns are unfounded. It temporarily restrains precipitative action against Emami while the legal challenge remains before the court.

The proceedings also raise questions about how regulatory authorities should handle responses to show-cause notices before issuing directions that may trigger enforcement action across multiple jurisdictions. Emami’s contention is that its reply should have been considered before the subsequent letter was issued. The court’s observation about the notice’s explanation adds another issue for consideration as the dispute progresses.

For food and consumer brands, the case highlights the legal stakes attached to product naming and advertising language. A brand identity may be central to how a product is marketed, but it does not remove the need to comply with food labelling and advertising rules. At the same time, enforcement action must be supported by the applicable legal framework and follow the required process.

For now, Emami has secured temporary breathing space as it challenges the regulator’s action. The next hearing, scheduled for February, will bring the dispute back before the court. Until then, the question of whether “Healthy & Tasty” crosses the line from branding into potentially misleading claims remains unresolved.