Delhi HC denies Johnson & Johnson subsidiary to sell existing ORSL stock

The Delhi High Court declined interim relief to JNTL Consumer Health, Johnson & Johnson's Indian arm, to sell its remaining ORSL stock, upholding the FSSAI order against misleading branding

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to grant interim relief to JNTL Consumer Health, the Indian subsidiary of American healthcare company Johnson & Johnson, to sell its remaining stock of ORSL electrolyte drink.

 

Why did JNTL approach the court? 

JNTL had challenged an earlier single-judge order that restrained it from producing and selling ORSL-branded drinks. The previous order upheld the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) directive prohibiting the manufacture of products using names resembling oral rehydration solutions (ORS), on the grounds that they misled consumers and posed risks to children’s health.

 

What did the Delhi HC say? 

 

A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela declined to interfere with the single-judge ruling, observing that the product’s branding could deceive consumers into believing it was a medically approved ORS formulation.

 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that JNTL had used the brand name for nearly two decades and had registered trademarks. He said the products were energy and rehydration drinks—not medical formulations—and carried disclaimers stating they were not WHO-approved ORS products.

 

The counsel also sought permission to liquidate existing stock, asserting that half the goods were already in the market and that the company was prepared to rebrand its products.

 

Why did the court refuse relief? 

The bench expressed strong reservations about granting any relaxation. “ORS has brought a revolution to a poor country like ours. The rate of child deaths has come down because of it,” the court said, adding that products marketed under similar names amounted to misbranding, irrespective of their composition.

 

Referring to the public health implications, the judges recalled that even in earlier cases involving pharmaceutical companies such as Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, interim protection had been refused. “If it were a prescription-based product, it would be a different matter. But being available over the counter, it risks causing harm,” the court noted.

 

What were the broader concerns? 

The bench emphasised the likelihood of confusion among consumers, particularly in rural areas. “When a child with diarrhoea is given a product labelled ‘ORS’ or one suggesting electrolytes, there is every chance of misleading. It may not harm a healthy person, but it can harm someone unwell,” the judges said.

 

The court scheduled the next hearing for December 9.

 

On October 14, the FSSAI had withdrawn all prior permissions for food and beverage companies to use the term “ORS” in product names or branding unless they complied with standard medical formulations.