Reliance says over 1.048 billion units and printed packs hang on two words: "Energy Drink".
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has given India’s biggest energy drink makers temporary relief from an order to stop calling their products “Energy Drink”. On 6 October 2026, Justice Amit Mahajan stayed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) directive fully for Reliance Consumer Products and partially for PepsiCo India and Monster Beverage India. However, the stays do not decide the merits, and the next hearing is on 5 November.
What the regulator ordered
On 30 June 2026, FSSAI directed manufacturers to remove the term “Energy Drink” within 90 days and to drop claims such as “boost energy levels”. Its position is that Indian food law recognises no such category, and that these products are standardised only as “Caffeinated Beverage”. Consequently, a 17 July communication asked state food safety commissioners to inspect markets and stop non-compliant stock. Meanwhile, FSSAI says industry reached a consensus at a 20 July stakeholder meeting. Manufacturers told the court that any concessions were made under protest, so that point remains contested.
Three companies, three outcomes
The court’s orders differ sharply. Reliance, for Campa Energy Drink Gold Boost, received a complete interim stay of both the June order and the July circular. This allows it to keep selling and manufacturing under the descriptor. PepsiCo (Sting Energy and Adrenaline Rush) and Monster received a narrower stay against coercive action. Justice Mahajan observed that “your existing stock will be sold”, yet he barred fresh manufacturing under the descriptor.
Red Bull’s case was decided earlier. On 29 September, the court quashed the order against it because FSSAI issued no show-cause notice and offered no hearing. Importantly, the regulator remains free to begin fresh proceedings.
The procedural fault line
The companies argued that FSSAI breached the principle of audi alteram partem by imposing sweeping prohibitions without notice. Notably, the court pressed FSSAI’s counsel on the omission and remarked that it was never too late to rectify mistakes. Petitioners also pointed to inconsistency. In March 2024, FSSAI had advised e-commerce operators that the term was permissible for products under Food Category System codes 14.1.4.1 and 14.1.4.2.
FSSAI answers that these codes are an internal licensing mechanism. In its view, they do not authorise brands to use category titles as front-of-pack descriptors or functional claims. This is the central legal question, and the interim orders leave it open.
Commercial exposure
The stakes are considerable. Trade estimates value the category at about ₹9,500 crore ($1.14 billion), while a Euromonitor-linked projection sees roughly $1.6 billion (about ₹13,300 crore) by 2028. Retail sales are growing at 12.6% a year. PepsiCo’s 2017 launch of Sting Energy at ₹20 widened the category’s reach well beyond affluent urban buyers.
Company filings, which remain unverified claims, quantify the disruption. PepsiCo cited 492 million PET bottles and 26 million cans in circulation. Reliance cited more than 1.048 billion packaged units and pre-printed materials, including packaging for 400 million cans and 360 million bottles. Monster cited about 30 million units. Meanwhile, The Economic Times reported that distributors stopped collecting stock from factories after late September. Delistings followed on quick-commerce and e-commerce platforms, and modern trade chains placed stock holds.
The public health backdrop
FSSAI frames its action as a misbranding and public health measure. Existing rules cap caffeine at 145 to 300 mg/L and require a warning against use by children, pregnant or lactating women and caffeine-sensitive people. Furthermore, the category has gained strong reach among 15 to 19 year-olds, and the United Kingdom has moved to ban sales to under-16s. Similarly, FSSAI has acted this year against “ORS” descriptors on electrolyte drinks and “Paneer” on analogue dairy products.
What to watch
Several questions remain open. First, the court must decide whether registration under Food Category System 14.1.4 entitles brands to use “Energy Drink” on packs. Second, FSSAI may consider formal rulemaking to codify the term as a sub-category with specific labelling rules. Moreover, the fate of seized stock and pre-printed packaging is unsettled.
Therefore, three signals matter most after 5 November: any FSSAI circular clarifying the stays for state officers, a fresh show-cause notice to Red Bull and the return of listings on quick-commerce and e-commerce platforms. Encouragingly, a ruling that settles both procedure and terminology would give one of India’s fastest-growing beverage categories the clarity it needs to plan.
About the Author
