The high court made it clear that the consent order was not intended to allow continued manufacture of products with misleading names.
Published Oct 29, 2025 | 11:11 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 29, 2025 | 11:11 AM
ORS and ORSL being simultaneously sold in Chennai pharmacies. (Veni EN)
Synopsis: The FSSAI is set to make a final decision on the controversial ban of beverages using the term ‘ORS’ in their branding by 31 October, following clarifications issued by the Delhi High Court. The FSSAI’s 15 October order categorically barred the use of “ORS” in any food or beverage label, permitting the term only for genuine WHO-formula products.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is set to make a final decision on the controversial ban of beverages using the term ‘ORS’ in their branding by 31 October, following clarifications issued by the Delhi High Court on the scope of its earlier interim order.
“At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent FSSAI, who appears on advance notice, submits that the exercise as contemplated in terms of the aforesaid consent order dated 17.10.2025 is underway, and a hearing has been scheduled today (28 October) itself. Further, it is assured and undertaken that the said exercise shall be concluded before 31.10.2025,” the high court said in its order.
“Let the outcome thereof be placed on record inasmuch as the same will also have a bearing on the present matter,” it added.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories challenging FSSAI orders dated 14 and 15 October, which withdrew earlier approvals that had allowed the use of ‘ORS’ with prefixes or suffixes in registered trademarks for electrolyte and beverage products.
In this regard, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday, 28 October, issued important clarifications regarding the court’s 17 October order, which had been widely misinterpreted on social media as permitting food business operators to continue manufacturing beverages labelled as ORS (oral rehydration solution).
The judge made it clear that the consent order was not intended to allow continued manufacture of products with misleading names.
“I would have restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing fresh batches had I known that the FSSAI would take two weeks to take a decision,” said Justice Datta as reported by Bar and Bench. “The consent order was passed to enable the FSSAI to take the requisite steps. It wasn’t to allow all these manufacturers to continue manufacturing these products.”
On 23 October, FSSAI issued a forceful clarification dismissing social media claims that it had permitted the disposal or sale of ORSL, a popular hydration drink at the center of the regulatory dispute.
“It is being WRONGLY claimed in some social media posts that FSSAI has ‘permitted the disposal or sale of ORSL.’ It is also being WRONGLY claimed that FSSAI has given consent for the same,” the food safety regulator stated, directing the public to review the actual court order.
The clarification came after the Delhi High Court granted interim protection to JNTL Consumer Health (India), the manufacturer of ORSL. The court order stipulates that FSSAI must hear the company’s representation and consider its contentions before enforcing the ban against the petitioner. This interim relief allows JNTL to continue selling its existing stock, reportedly worth approximately ₹180 crore, though production of new high-sugar variants under the ORSL label remains halted.
The FSSAI’s 15 October order categorically barred the use of “ORS” in any food or beverage label, permitting the term only for genuine WHO-formula products that comply with the World Health Organisation’s oral rehydration solution formulation.
The regulator determined that using ORS, even with prefixes or suffixes in trademarked names, is misleading and constitutes a violation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Several companies have challenged this directive, including Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, whose product Rebalanz VITORS has been affected by the ban. The company’s counsel told the court that their product carries all required disclaimers from the WHO and other organisations.
The regulatory action stems from years of campaigning by Dr Sivaranjani Santosh, a Hyderabad-based paediatrician who has been fighting to prohibit the use of the term “ORS” in commercial food and beverage products since 2017.
Dr Sivaranjani argued that products like ORSL are misleadingly marketed under medical-sounding names while being high in sugar and nutritionally different from the WHO’s genuine Oral Rehydration Solution — a life-saving formulation used to treat dehydration during diarrhoea and vomiting.
Following the court’s interim order, Dr Sivaranjani issued an emotional public appeal.
“The long battle we have won! ORSL cannot produce new high-sugar ORSL and sell, but it wants to clear out its existing ₹180 crore stock. India, please stand with me! People’s power has to win against corporate lobbying,” she wrote.
The paediatrician, who is also a first aid trainer and social activist, has alleged facing online threats and claims that companies are attempting to influence media coverage through legal notices.
The court has scheduled the matter for hearing on 31 October, by which date FSSAI has committed to completing its review of representations submitted by affected companies.
Justice Datta warned that if FSSAI is unable to meet this deadline, the court contemplates passing orders to restrain manufacturers from continuing production.
In the Dr Reddy’s case heard on 28 October, the company’s counsel stated that they have ceased manufacturing fresh stocks of their product Rebalanz VITORS, though they sought permission to dispose of already manufactured inventory.
The court said this aspect would be considered at the next hearing.
The controversy sparked a national conversation on food labelling, consumer safety, and corporate accountability in India’s food and beverage sector.
While companies argue that FSSAI’s sudden withdrawal of earlier permissions was made without prior notice, consultation, or hearing, health advocates maintain that decisive action is needed to prevent misleading branding that could endanger children’s health.
“This is not about brands or business. It’s about protecting lives,” Dr Sivaranjani emphasised in her public statements.
As the 31 October deadline approaches, all eyes are on FSSAI’s decision, which will determine whether beverages using ‘ORS-like’ branding can continue to exist in the Indian market or whether only WHO-compliant oral rehydration solutions will be permitted to use the medically significant term.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
