Delhi HC Sets Aside FSSAI Order Against Red Bull’s ‘Energy Drink’ Label

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) directive that required Red Bull to stop describing its product as an “energy drink” on its cans.

The court quashed the regulator’s June 30, 2026 order, holding that the company had not been given an opportunity to present its case before the directive was issued.

The dispute concerns the regulatory treatment of caffeinated beverages in India and the circumstances under which the term “energy drink” can be used on products sold in the country.

Red Bull had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the FSSAI action and argued that it had used the “energy drink” description for its products in India since 2002.

Why did Red Bull approach the Delhi High Court?

The legal proceedings followed an order issued by an FSSAI Assistant Director on June 30.

During the proceedings, Justice Amit Mahajan sought clarification from the food regulator on whether Red Bull had received a show-cause notice before the order was issued.

The court also asked whether the company had been given an opportunity to respond to the proposed action.

The proceedings focused on whether the regulator could take the action without first giving the affected company an opportunity to explain its position.

The court subsequently set aside the June 30 directive, finding that it had been issued without giving the company an opportunity to present its views.

Red Bull also challenges subsequent FSSAI communication

The company’s petition extends beyond the June 30 order.

Red Bull has also challenged a July 17 communication issued by FSSAI, under which food safety authorities in states and Union Territories were directed to take action against products allegedly not complying with applicable requirements.

According to Red Bull’s petition, enforcement action subsequently took place at various locations, including the seizure of its products.

The company has argued that the original directive was issued without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

Dispute over use of the term ‘energy drink’

A central issue in the dispute is the regulatory treatment of the phrase “energy drink” for caffeinated beverages.

Red Bull has argued that it has used the description in India for more than two decades and has questioned the change in the regulator’s position.

The company’s petition reportedly referred to an FSSAI advisory issued in March 2024, which Red Bull said indicated that the term could be used for products falling within the relevant food categories for caffeinated beverages.

The company has therefore questioned the basis for the subsequent regulatory action.

Red Bull says action creates regulatory uncertainty

Red Bull’s India business has characterised the action as an abrupt prohibition.

The company has argued that preventing it from using the existing product description, without a corresponding change to the underlying product standard, creates uncertainty for its business and affects existing as well as planned commercial investments.

These are the company’s claims made in the legal proceedings and do not represent a finding by the court on every substantive regulatory issue surrounding the product description.

The High Court’s immediate ruling centred on the procedural issue of whether Red Bull had been given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the June 30 directive was issued.

What does the ruling mean for the dispute?

The High Court’s decision sets aside the June 30 directive on the ground identified by the court.

It does not, by itself, amount to a final determination that every regulatory requirement governing the description of caffeinated beverages has been resolved in Red Bull’s favour.

The wider dispute concerning applicable food-safety requirements and the use of the “energy drink” terminology remains relevant to the regulatory framework.

The outcome also highlights the importance of procedural safeguards when regulatory authorities take enforcement action affecting a company’s products and commercial operations.

Energy drinks face wider regulatory scrutiny

The Red Bull-FSSAI dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of energy drinks and highly caffeinated beverages in several markets.

Regulators have increasingly focused on the composition, labelling and marketing of such products, particularly in relation to caffeine, sugar and taurine.

The issue is not limited to India. The supplied report notes that England is set to restrict the sale of energy drinks to children below the age of 16 from April next year.

India’s energy-drink market has also been expanding, with the sector cited in the source material as potentially reaching $1.6 billion by 2028.

What happens next?

The Delhi High Court’s order removes the June 30 directive that was challenged by Red Bull because of the lack of an opportunity to be heard.

The broader regulatory questions surrounding the classification and labelling of caffeinated beverages, however, remain significant for manufacturers and consumers.

For beverage companies, the case also illustrates how changes in regulatory interpretation can have implications for product labelling, distribution and commercial planning.

For now, the key development is that the Delhi High Court has set aside the June 30 FSSAI directive against Red Bull after finding that the company had not been given an opportunity to present its case before the action was taken.