‘Not for new production’: Delhi high court clarifies its ORS order
The Delhi high court clarified its earlier order allowing JNTL to sell ORS drinks, stressing it was not meant to permit misleading production practices.
The Delhi high court on Tuesday clarified that its earlier order allowing Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, JNTL Consumer Health, to continue selling its electrolyte drinks under the registered trademark ORSL was never intended to permit companies to continue producing products with the term ‘ORS’ in a misleading way.
The development came days after the high court on October 17 had protected JNTL Consumer Health against the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) decision prohibiting the use of the term ‘ORS’ on beverages. The order came after JNTL agreed to submit a representation challenging the ban within a week, and FSSAI consented that its order would not be enforced against JNTL until it decided on the representation.
On Tuesday, Justice Sachin Datta clarified that the consent order on October 17 was delivered with the expectation that the FSSAI would decide on JNTL’s representation within two to three days.
“I would have restrained the manufacturers from manufacturing fresh batches had I known that the FSSAI would take two weeks to make a decision. The consent order was passed to enable FSSAI to take the requisite steps. It wasn’t to allow these manufacturers to continue manufacturing the products. The idea was that the FSSAI would do the needful in two to three days,” Justice Datta said.
The clarification came amid criticism on social media of the earlier order, which was widely interpreted as the court permitting food and business operators (FBOs) to continue manufacturing beverages with ORS branding.
The FSSAI on October 14 and 15 had issued orders restraining FBOs from using the term ORS, as prefixes or suffixes in the name, label, advertisement or trademark of any food or beverage product, terming such practice misleading and contravened the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The clarification came as the court was hearing a separate plea by Dr Reddy’s Laboratories seeking permission to sell its existing electrolyte drink, Rebalanz VITORS, citing the October 17 order. In the petition, the company claimed it held unsold products of more than ₹1 crore and its product carried all the disclaimers required by various organisations, including WHO.
FSSAI’s counsel, however, said the authority would take a call on JNTL’s representation by Friday.
While scheduling the next hearing for October 31, the court clarified if the authority fails to decide by then, it would issue orders restraining the manufacturers from producing the beverages.
“If you (FSSAI) are unable to do it, you can move an application. I contemplate passing orders to restrain the manufacturers from manufacturing,” the judge told FSSAI’s lawyer.
