Delhi High Court Sets Aside FSSAI Order To Drop 'Energy Drink' Label On Red Bull Packets; Cites Lack Of Show Cause Notice

The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that FSSAI is free to take a fresh decision on the matter, but only after following the principles of natural justice and giving Red Bull a proper opportunity to be heard.

What Red Bull had challenged

Red Bull had approached the Court against FSSAI's order of June 30, 2026, which directed it to discontinue the "Energy Drink" descriptor across its range of caffeinated beverages. It also challenged a subsequent communication dated July 17, 2026, by which FSSAI directed food safety authorities in States and Union Territories to take action against products found non-compliant; a communication that Red Bull said led to enforcement action, including seizure of its products at several locations.

The company's plea stated that it has been selling its products in India under the "Energy Drink" descriptor since 2002, and argued that the June 30 order was passed without any show-cause notice or hearing.

"It is undisputed"- no hearing was given

The Court recorded that the matter had first come up a day earlier, when the respondent authorities were asked to take instructions. When the matter was taken up again, the Court noted that FSSAI itself did not dispute the central fact underlying the petition: "Today, it is undisputed that the order dated 30.06.2026, directing the petitioners 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 noted that the scale of the impact such an order could have, given how long the product had been sold in India: "The impugned order has serious consequences. The petitioner has been selling the product since the year 2002 and an order of such nature would undoubtedly have serious impact not only on the business of the petitioner but also on the employees of the petitioner. It is well settled that no statutory authority is empowered to pass orders having serious civil consequences without affording the party an opportunity of hearing or representation."

It said, "No statutory authority is empowered to pass orders having serious civil consequences without affording the party an opportunity of hearing."

The Court also noted that this was not a case where the regulator could point to an emergency justifying the skipping of procedure: "It is not the case of the Respondents that the order has been passed in any extreme emergent situation. The impugned order is therefore passed without following the principles of natural justice."

Allowing the petition, the Court set aside the June 30 order along with all consequential steps taken pursuant to it, while granting FSSAI liberty to pass a fresh order after issuing a show-cause notice and hearing Red Bull. Importantly, the Court made clear that it had not examined the underlying dispute at all: "It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the dispute as to whether the petitioner's product violates any provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or whether the respondents have the power to pass any order directing the petitioner to discontinue."

The petition was disposed of in these terms, leaving FSSAI free to revisit the question of whether "Energy Drink" is an appropriate descriptor for Red Bull's products; this time, after hearing the company out.

Case Title: Red Bull India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Order Date: September 29, 2026