The Delhi High Court on Tuesday set aside a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) order directing Red Bull to stop using the words “Energy Drink” on its product [Red Bull Vs Union of India]..Justice Amit Mahajan found that the company had not been given an opportunity to respond before the FSSAI direction was issued.“It remains undisputed that the order dated 30th June, 2026 directing the petitioner to not use the term ‘Energy Drink’ in its product was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to file any reply or give any explanation,” the Court observed.The Court, therefore, allowed Red Bull’s petition challenging the FSSAI's June 30 order, on the limited ground that natural justice principles had been violated.The Court clarified that the FSSAI is free to take a fresh decision in the matter after following the due process by issuing Red Bull a show-cause notice and granting the company an opportunity of hearing..Red Bull had approached the High Court challenging a June 30, 2026, FSSAI order directing it to discontinue the “Energy Drink” descriptor on its caffenated beverage products. The company had also questioned a consequential July 17 communication issued to food safety authorities across the country. The company’s case was that it had been using the "Energy Drink" descriptor for its beverage products in India since 2002 and that FSSAI had itself previously recognised its use for the relevant category of caffeinated beverages. Red Bull had also relied on a March 2024 FSSAI advisory which, according to the petition, permitted the expression “Energy Drink” for products falling under the relevant food categories. It argued that the 2026 action represented an unexplained departure from the regulator’s earlier position.When the matter was heard yesterday, the Court had asked FSSAI to take instructions on whether Red Bull had been issued any notice before it was directed to drop the "Energy Drink" label from its products. .FSSAI, in response, maintained that its June 30 communication itself could be treated as a show-cause notice and said that the concern was only with the use of the words “Energy Drink”, and not with the product itself.“The word ‘Energy Drink’ on the label is a problem. The product is not a problem,” counsel for FSSAI submitted.The Court, however, repeatedly asked whether Red Bull had at any stage been specifically called upon to explain why action should not be taken against it.“Which notice asked him to explain?” Justice Mahajan asked..FSSAI also referred to representations made by Red Bull and a subsequent meeting in which the company had participated. It submitted that Red Bull had agreed during the meeting to make the relevant changes within 60 days.The Court, however, was not persuaded that these subsequent interactions cured the absence of an opportunity for Red Bull to respond before the June 30 order was passed. It, therefore, quashed the June 30 order. .Red Bull was represented by Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Suhail Dutt with advocates Abhixit Singh, Bhaskar Joshi, Krisna Gambhir, Shreya Sethi, Ritwik Sharma, Pavni Tuli, Sachdev Sharma, Meghna Saha and Sakshi Rana..FSSAI was represented by Advocate Tannishtha Singh and Amit Meharia from Meharia & Company.
