Category: Delhi

• ET Online

• Published On Oct 14, 2026 at 02:37 PM IST

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the Centre and the Delhi government over a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that non-dairy substitutes are being sold as paneer without consumers being informed about their ingredients.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Sanjay Singh directed the authorities to submit their responses within six weeks.

The petition, filed by Ridhima Singh and Avlokiteshwar Padmapani Sidharth, raised concerns over the sale of dairy analogue products under the name of paneer, arguing that such substitutes contain non-milk ingredients and do not offer the same nutritional value as traditional paneer.

According to the petitioners, paneer is a standardised dairy product under food safety regulations, while dairy analogues may contain vegetable fats, oils and other non-milk constituents.

They argued that consumers ordering paneer dishes at hotels and restaurants have no way of determining whether the food has been prepared using genuine paneer or a non-dairy alternative.

Citing the ongoing festive season, the petitioners sought immediate intervention from the court, requesting directions to authorities to conduct sampling and testing of paneer and products marketed as paneer.

“They are doing it, they have placed the statistics (before us) to that effect,” the bench observed in response.

The PIL also referred to measures taken by Gujarat, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra against non-dairy paneer and sought similar action in Delhi.

The petitioners urged the court to direct authorities to prevent the manufacture, supply, sale and serving of dairy analogue paneer in the national capital.

They also sought mandatory disclosure requirements for hotels, restaurants, caterers, eateries, cloud kitchens and e-commerce food businesses using non-dairy substitutes in their preparations.

“A consumer who knowingly purchases a product correctly disclosed as an analogue or non-dairy substitute makes an informed choice. However, a consumer who purchases or orders ‘paneer’ is entitled to receive a product which answers the statutory description of paneer and ought not to be unknowingly supplied a product in which essential milk constituents have been substituted by vegetable fat, vegetable oil or other non-milk constituents,” the petition said.

The matter concerns the distinction between standardised dairy products and non-dairy alternatives, with the petitioners seeking measures to ensure consumers are informed about the ingredients used in food sold as paneer.

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.

Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.

All about ETHealthworld industry right on your smartphone!

• Download the ETHealthworld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.

• PTI

• Published On Oct 14, 2026 at 07:40 AM IST

New Delhi: Delhi has recorded 799 dengue cases and 294 malaria cases so far this year, with infections rising as the mosquito-borne disease season continues, according to an MCD report.

In the first week of October, Delhi reported 98 dengue cases and 23 malaria cases, while the second week saw 104 dengue cases and 28 malaria cases, according to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) report for the week ending October 10. The city also recorded three chikungunya cases during the week.

The report said 202 dengue cases and 51 malaria cases were recorded till October 10.

The weekly report said Delhi recorded 32 chikungunya cases this year, compared with 91 in 2025 and 69 in 2024.

As part of its mosquito-control measures, the civic body has carried out more than 29 lakh house inspections for mosquito breeding this year and sprayed nearly 3.5 lakh houses, the report said.

During the inspections, around 1.98 lakh houses were found positive for mosquito breeding, while 1.37 lakh legal notices were issued for conditions conducive to mosquito breeding.

The civic body has also launched 23,829 prosecutions and imposed 15,656 penalties, according to the report.

No loss of life has taken place due to dengue or malaria so far this year, the data showed.

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.

Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.

All about ETHealthworld industry right on your smartphone!

• Download the ETHealthworld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.

• ET Online

• Published On Oct 13, 2026 at 07:38 AM IST

The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to grant PepsiCo permission to continue manufacturing beverages containing the “energy drink” label. But the court asked a single-judge bench to explain why it had denied the company that relief.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma was hearing PepsiCo’s appeal against an October 6 order that allowed the company to sell its existing stock of Sting Energy and Adrenaline Rush but barred it from manufacturing fresh products with the “energy drink” tag.

During the proceedings, PepsiCo’s senior counsel argued that while the single judge had protected the company from any action over the FSSAI directive, it did not allow the company to continue manufacturing beverages under the same label.

The counsel also pointed out that similar relief had been granted to another beverage company in a different case involving Red Bull.

The division bench, however mentioned that it would not examine the merits of the dispute at this stage, considering the fact that PepsiCo’s request for confirmation of interim relief was still pending before the single judge.

“What is in operation is an ad-interim relief in the matter,” the court observed.

The bench noted that the October 6 order did not give specific reasons for preventing PepsiCo from manufacturing products with the “energy drink” label, especially when similar permission had been granted in the Red Bull case.

“We are prima facie of the view that the single judge has not recorded any specific reasons for not permitting the petitioner in the matter of manufacturing with the label ‘energy drink’, which otherwise was permissible in (the Red Bull case),” the bench said.

It directed the single judge to record the reasons within a week so that the division bench could consider the issue.

“We deem it appropriate to relegate the matter to the single judge with a direction that for observations in paragraph 13 of the order dated 6.10.2026, let there be reasons recorded so as to enable this court to deal with the issue,” the court ordered.

Meanwhile, counsel for the FSSAI opposed PepsiCo’s appeal, arguing that it was not maintainable.

The dispute began after the food regulator directed PepsiCo to remove the “energy drink” descriptor from its beverages and instructed food safety officers across the country to seize products containing the label.

PepsiCo argues against the directions before the Delhi High Court. On October 6, the single judge granted the company interim protection from coercive action and allowed it to clear its existing stock of beverages labelled as “energy drink”.

However, the court stopped short of allowing fresh manufacturing under the same label, prompting PepsiCo to approach the division bench.

As of now, PepsiCo can continue to sell its existing stock under the protection granted by the court, but the restriction on manufacturing new products with the “energy drink” label remains in place.

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals.

Subscribe to Newsletter to get latest insights & analysis in your inbox.

All about ETHealthworld industry right on your smartphone!

• Download the ETHealthworld App and get the Realtime updates and Save your favourite articles.