The Delhi High Court has allowed Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, JTNL Consumer Health, to continue selling its popular electrolyte drink under the registered trademark “ORSL” until the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) completes its review of the company’s plea challenging the ban on using Oral Rehydration Solution (ORS) branding for certain beverages.

The court’s decision comes in the wake of FSSAI orders issued on October 14 and 15, which directed food business operators (FBOs) to stop using the term “ORS” as a prefix or suffix in the name, label, advertisement, or trademark of any food or beverage product. According to the regulator, the use of the term ORS in products such as fruit-based drinks, non-carbonated beverages, ready-to-drink formulations, and similar items could mislead consumers, thereby violating provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The authority had also mandated the removal of the term ORS from affected products.

Court’s Observations and Interim Relief

A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta granted JTNL interim relief after the company agreed to submit a representation challenging the FSSAI ban within a week. FSSAI’s counsel, Aamir Zafar Khan, consented that the regulator’s order would not be enforced against JTNL until a decision is taken on the representation. The Union Health Ministry was represented by advocate Satya Ranjan Swain.

In its order, the court made it clear that JTNL would have the liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies if it is dissatisfied with the outcome of the representation. The bench stated:

“After some hearing, it is agreed that the petitioner would submit a representation against the impugned orders dated 14.10.2025 and clarification order 15.10.2025… Let the said representation be submitted within a period of one week from today. It is further agreed that till the said representation is decided in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and duly taking into account the contentions raised in the present petition, the impugned orders… shall not be given effect to qua the petitioner (JTNL Consumer Health). The petition is disposed of in the above terms.”

JTNL’s Arguments

In its petition, JTNL argued that its branding was in compliance with FSSAI’s earlier directives, which had permitted the use of the term “ORS” provided that specific disclaimers were included on the products. The company contended that the sudden withdrawal of these permissions appeared arbitrary and unfair.

JTNL further stated that the products currently manufactured or in the supply chain had an estimated market value between ₹155 crore and ₹180 crore, and that the ban could severely disrupt its business operations. The company also claimed that the impugned orders were issued without giving prior notice or hearing to stakeholders, in violation of procedural requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

“The Impugned Orders were passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or other stakeholders, despite the significant impact on their businesses. The Impugned Orders were issued without publishing drafts, inviting objections, or following proper procedural requirements under the FSS Act,” JTNL’s petition stated.

Implications for the Beverage Industry

The interim relief granted by the Delhi High Court ensures that JTNL can continue the sale of its ORSL products without disruption while the FSSAI reviews the petition. The case highlights ongoing tensions between regulatory oversight and corporate interests in India’s fast-growing beverage market.

Industry analysts note that the ruling could set a precedent for other companies using ORS-type branding in electrolyte or hydration products. Legal experts observe that the outcome of FSSAI’s review, and any subsequent judicial decision, could influence branding, labeling, and marketing practices across India’s health and wellness beverage sector.

Until the regulator decides on JTNL’s representation, the company is allowed to maintain its ORSL sales, safeguarding its operations and market position. Observers are closely watching how FSSAI balances consumer protection with commercial interests, particularly in light of the potential financial impact on businesses.