InquirerWATCH: Sara Duterte Impeachment trial | Sept. 29, 2026CNN Türk7 Ekim'in perde arkasında yeni iddia! Netanyahu'dan gizli BAE ziyareti mi?PunchLAUTECH resident doctors’ strike hits 32 daysESPN DeportesLuis Fernando Tena tras goleada ante El Salvador: "Fue una sorpresa total el marcador"Daily MaverickTHE INTERVIEW: Why a British documentary filmmaker turned his lens to SA’s protest legacyESPNSirianni rues reaction to flagged hit on Hurts in Eagles' MNF loss한겨레이 대통령 “3대 메가프로젝트 지연 요인 미리 찾아 해결해야”Bollywood HungamaShakira’s Madrid concert to stream globally on Amazon Music on October 3; celebration to spotlight women In Latin musicSözcüYENİ Parti'nin ismi için kritik gün! Gözler AYM'deGhaflaEric Omondi Faults Senator Karen Nyamu Over Attendance at KICC Health EventSBS 뉴스강민국, 조희대 국감 증인 채택에 "삼권분립 붕괴 쿠데타"Rai NewsSuper El Niño, esperti britannici lanciano l'allerta al governo: "Evento significativo"
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Tuesday, September 29, 2026

Delhi high court questions FSSAI over order to Red Bull: 'Was a notice issued first?'

Translate

The Delhi high court on Monday asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) whether it had issued a notice to Red Bull before directing the company to discontinue using the descriptor “Energy Drink” for its products.

A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan directed FSSAI’s counsel to seek instructions on the issue and listed the matter for hearing on September 29.

“If there is no notice, it has to go,” the bench remarked.

The court issued the direction while hearing a petition filed by Red Bull challenging FSSAI’s June 30 order directing the company to stop using the descriptor “Energy Drink” on its range of caffeinated beverages.

The petition also challenged a subsequent July 17 communication asking food safety officers across states and Union Territories to take action against products allegedly found to be non-compliant.

Also Read | 'No control over own officers': Sanjay Raut claims FDA trying to extort money from hotels, Mundhe seeks proof

Red Bull contended that the June 30 order was issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard.

It further claimed that the July communication resulted in enforcement action, including the seizure of its products at multiple locations across the country.

The company also argued that the latest directive represented an unexplained departure from the licences, import clearances and no-objection certificates issued to it over the years for products carrying the same descriptor.

View the original on Hindustan Times →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.