Delhi HC Allows JTNL to Continue Selling ‘ORSL’ Pending FSSAI Review

October 25, 2025

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has permitted JTNL Consumer Health, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, to continue marketing its electrolyte drink under the registered trademark “ORSL”, despite the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issuing a ban on the use of the term ‘ORS’ in beverage branding. The High Court order places the FSSAI directive in temporary suspension only with respect to JTNL, until the authority decides on the company’s representation.

This interim protection addresses concerns surrounding regulatory compliance, consumer protection, and market impact.

Background: FSSAI’s Prohibition on Use of “ORS”

On October 14 and 15, 2025, the FSSAI issued orders directing Food Business Operators (FBOs) to refrain from using the term ORS:

In product names
On packaging labels
In advertisements
As part of trademarks

The regulator reasoned that electrolyte drinks marketed as “ORS” or similarly named alternatives misled consumers into believing they were therapeutic Oral Rehydration Solutions—which are recognized as medical formulations, not general beverages.

The ban applied particularly to:

Fruit drinks
Ready-to-drink beverages
Non-carbonated drinks
Flavored hydration products

FSSAI asserted that such branding could violate Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), which prohibits misleading representations.

JTNL’s Petition Before the Delhi High Court

JTNL argued that:

It had complied with earlier FSSAI guidelines, which allowed use of “ORS” with disclaimers.
The sudden withdrawal of these permissions was arbitrary and procedurally improper.
The orders were passed without hearing affected stakeholders, violating the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard).
Products worth ₹155 crore to ₹180 crore were already in production and the supply chain, meaning the ban would cause severe business losses.

Delhi High Court’s Interim Order

A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta held:

JTNL must submit a formal representation to the FSSAI within one week.
The FSSAI shall not enforce the ban against JTNL until the representation is decided.
JTNL retains the right to pursue further legal remedies if dissatisfied with the regulatory decision.

Thus, the High Court did not set aside the ban outright, but created a procedural safeguard to ensure fairness.

Statutes and Regulatory Provisions Involved

3. Administrative Law Principles

Principle of Natural Justice: Affected parties must be heard before adverse action.
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: JTNL had relied on earlier FSSAI approvals.

These cases support the view that any regulatory restriction must be reasonable, proportionate, and procedurally fair.

Industry and Public Health Considerations

ORS (Oral Rehydration Solution) is a WHO-standard medical formula for dehydration and diarrhea treatment.
Commercial hydration beverages often contain sugar + electrolytes, but do not meet WHO therapeutic standards.
FSSAI’s stance aims to prevent medical misrepresentation.
The Court’s order balances public health concerns with commercial fairness.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order maintains the status quo, preventing immediate commercial disruption while ensuring procedural fairness. The case now hinges on FSSAI’s final decision, which must weigh: