Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain is examining whether mandatory vegetarian and non-vegetarian labelling through colour-coded dots on toothpaste and other toiletry packaging can be enforced under existing law, amid conflicting positions taken by regulatory authorities. The Court directed the Drug Controller General of India and the Director of Legal Metrology to jointly consult stakeholders and file a consolidated affidavit clarifying whether such labelling should be mandatory or voluntary.

The petition was filed by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited engaged in manufacturing and marketing fast-moving consumer goods and healthcare products, challenging an amendment introduced in Rule 6(8) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The amendment, notified on 16 June 2014, mandated that packages containing soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, and other cosmetics and toiletries must bear a red or brown dot for products of non-vegetarian origin and a green dot for products of vegetarian origin.

Also Read: "Cruelty Of The Highest Order": Supreme Court Pulls Up Husband For Ousting Wife And Denying Her Access To Six-Month-Old Twins; Directs Parties To Appear With Children

The petitioner contended that the Director of Legal Metrology lacked jurisdiction to prescribe such labeling requirements, arguing that the matter fell within the domain of the Drug Controller General of India under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was further submitted that toiletries fall within the definition of cosmetics. In support, the petitioner placed on record minutes of meetings of the Drug Technical Advisory Board held in May 2018 and April 2021, which considered the proposal of mandatory dot labeling. The Board concluded that such labeling should remain voluntary due to lack of clarity in certifying vegetarian and non-vegetarian ingredients. A notice dated 10 September 2021 was also issued reflecting this position. The respondents sought time to respond to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner.

The Court recorded: “In this writ petition it is noticed that though the matter has been pending for more than ten years, the issue in respect of whether the reflection of the Red, Brown or Green dot has to be done or not across the categories of the products, has not been taken finally.”

It further stated: “On the one hand the Legal Metrology Rules prescribe use of the dots mandatorily while the DTAB which advises the DCGI has made the very same voluntary. There is a clear contradiction in the stands of both these departments.”

The Court observed: “Some of the products would come within the jurisdiction of the Drug Controller General of India whereas some products would not fall within the jurisdiction of the Drug Controller General of India.”

The Bench noted: “In the opinion of this Court, prima facie, considering the recommendation of the DTAB and the notice dated 10th September, 2021 which prescribes that the indication of the Red, Brown or Green dot would be on a voluntary basis, there is a clear conflict between the advice of the DTAB and the impugned notification of the department of Legal Metrology.”

It recorded: “There is therefore a need for both these Departments to come together and to take a decision after holding stakeholder's consultation as to whether incorporation of such a dot ought to be mandatory or should it be left to be implemented voluntarily by the manufacturers/sellers of these products.”

The Court directed: "A joint meeting shall be held between the Director, Drug Controller General of India as also the Director, Legal Metrology and a comprehensive joint decision shall be arrived at as to the implementation of incorporation of the Red, Brown and Green dot on packaging of various products."

Also Read: Equal Pay For Equal Work Not Automatic Where Recruitment Qualifications Differ; Delhi High Court Rejects MCD Lab Technicians' Pay Parity Plea Against Central Govt Staff

“Let this joint consultation be undertaken in the next two months and the joint affidavit shall be filed at least two weeks before the next date of hearing." "In order to ensure that there is a formal notice to the Drug Controller General of India, the DCGI is impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the present petition."

"Let the amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week and a copy of the same be given to the ld. Counsel appearing for the Union of India. Copy of this order shall be communicated by the Registry to the Director, Legal Metrology and to the Drug Controller General of India." The matter is listed on 27th April, 2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. R. Jawahar Lal and Mr. Sayyam Maheshwari, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Ms. Priya Dwivedi and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advs.

Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1045-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1989/2015
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Madhu Jain