If a buyer requests ORS, pharmacies usually supply a sweetened ORSL drink as a substitute of the WHO-recommended rehydration resolution.
Dr Shivaranjani Santosh, a Hyderabad-based pediatrician, hailed the Delhi Excessive Courtroom’s judgment upholding the Meals Security and Requirements Authority of India (FSSAI) judgment banning using the time period ‘ORS’ (oral rehydration salts) on meals and beverage labels, terming it a serious victory for public well being and shopper security.
Dr Sivaranjani, who led the authorized effort that led to the regulatory motion, stated the judgment was a victory for India and that no kid’s life ought to be put in danger due to a deceptive label that incorrectly used the time period ORS. He referred to as on the FSSAI to behave decisively to make sure full compliance and stop such violations sooner or later.
The judgment handed down by Justice Sachin Dutta on October 31, 2025, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.upheld the FSSAI orders dated October 14 and 15 and the following enforcement notification issued on October 23, 2025. The court docket dominated that the regulator’s determination was justified on severe public well being grounds and fell totally inside its statutory powers.
In an October order, FSSAI revoked its earlier approval that allowed using the prefix or suffix ‘ORS’ in product logos and clarified that solely formulations that strictly adjust to World Well being Group (WHO) requirements will be labeled as oral rehydration salts or ‘ORS’. The judgment follows an eight-year marketing campaign by Dr Sivaranjani, who had filed a public curiosity litigation (PIL) within the Telangana Excessive Courtroom in 2022 difficult the sale of deceptive drinks as ORS.
Petitioner’s problem
Dr. Reddy’s, a Hyderabad-based firm that manufactures ‘Rebaranz Vitol’, claimed that the FSSAI’s determination was arbitrary and was taken with out discover, listening to or session with stakeholders. The corporate claimed that the order severely affected its operations and proprietary trademark rights, and violated its elementary rights.
The petition identified that the corporate’s drinks, that are bought in 200ml packs in apple, orange and mango flavors, have been manufactured and distributed in giant portions earlier than the FSSAI order and are at present unsold. Based on the petition, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories has a complete of 8,47,181 unsold items of ‘Rebarants Bitters’ beverage in its completed items stock, value a complete of round Rs 1,390 crore as on October 15.
The corporate argued that with out reduction it could be unable to promote its merchandise in its present packaging and would incur vital monetary losses.
FSSAI survey outcomes
On the ultimate listening to on October 31, the FSSAI, represented by Extra Solicitor Common Chetan Sharma, identified that the earlier approvals (granted in July 2022 and February 2024) have been conditionally topic to evaluation and could possibly be withdrawn in public curiosity. They discovered that product label disclaimers are ineffective in the event that they use a font and coloration scheme much like medical ORS merchandise and have “ORS” prominently within the model title.
court docket evaluation
Justice Sachin Dutta stated the FSSAI’s motion was pushed by vital public well being issues and was aimed toward defending customers, particularly the weak. The court docket declined to intrude with the technical and regulatory selections of skilled our bodies, discovering that second-guessing such coverage selections was not applicable for judicial evaluation.
The court docket stated there was “no fault within the delicate strategy adopted by the defendants in relation to issues that might severely endanger public well being”, including that the authorized obligations underneath the FSS Act can’t be subordinated to non-public industrial losses.
Reduction sought and supreme route
The court docket famous that Dr. Reddy’s had introduced its intention to stop manufacturing of latest stock and relabel or rebrand present stock. The corporate additionally sought permission to promote merchandise already in its provide chain to keep away from monetary losses.
The court docket refused to cross any direct reduction and as a substitute directed the FSSAI to contemplate the petitioner’s illustration within the matter and cross a reasoned order inside every week after giving a chance of listening to. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed however liberty was granted to the petitioner to strategy FSSAI relating to the unsold shares.
