SC admits appeals by Pepsico and BIS in 'Aquafina' 'Purity Guranteed' labelling case

SC has admitted the cross appeals filed by Pepsico and BIS over the former's packaged water brand 'Aquafina'. In Nov, 2008, Delhi HC had asked Pepsico to remove the picture of snow capped mountain from the bottle's label, and use words like 'pure', 'refreshing' etc. as per BIS guidelines.The judgement can be read here


Bureau of Indian Standards moved an LPA aginst of the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 delivered by the Learned Single Judge,in Writ Petition  no 20909 of 2005 whereby it was held that the use of the words PURE , CRISP , REFRESHING , PURIFIED AND PURITY GUARANTEED and the pictorial depiction of snow-capped mountain and the sun on the label of  Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. for packaged drinking water, was not misleading, and was not prohibited by any law.


The basic premise of the LPA was whether the pictorial device SNOW-CAPPED MOUNTAIN and the expression PURITY GUARANTEED as used in the label creates confusion in the mind of general public regarding the origin nature, composition and properties of the product and suggest that the origin of the water being in the mountains. 



Bureau of Indian Standards Concern

The BIS standard for the packaged drinking water is defined in IS 14543: 2004 in Clause 3.2 which states that water derived from any source of potable water is subject to certain treatments. Clause 5.2 states that the treatments require bringing the article within certain permissible parameters, (1) Organoleptic and Physical, (2) General, (3) toxic substances and (4) radio-active residues. Clause 7.2.3 of IS : 14543 : 2004 deals with the labelling prohibition that the use of any statement or of any pictorial device which may create confusion in the mind of the public or in any way mislead the public about the nature, origin, composition and properties of drinking water is prohibited. 

Rule 37 of the PFA Rules 1955 provides that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food contained in the package, in relation to the place of origin of the said food. Entry No. A-33, Appendix B of the PFA Rules 1955 which is at par with the labelling prohibitions under Clause 7.2.3 of IS : 14543 : 2004, also does not allow any misleading claim regarding nature, origin, composition and properties of water put on sale. Therefore, BSI contended that the objectionable expression "purity guaranteed" on the label of the Respondent  for Packaged Drinking Water is a misleading claim regarding nature, composition and properties of the water, while the depiction of the snow-capped mountain in the background therein is a misleading claim regarding the origin of the water.

(d) Further Packaged Drinking Water (as per IS 14543: 2004) is derived from potable water drawn from any source, and it undergoes treatment, whereas Packaged Mineral Water (as per IS 13428: 1998) is drawn only from the mountain, and hardly undergoes any treatment. Packaged Drinking Water merely conforms to the parameters of residues as per requirements specified in IS 14543: 2004, and therefore cannot be described as pure water . Thus, at the most it could be said to be conforming to the Indian Standard IS 14543: 2004 and no further. The word pure would even otherwise be confusing, as there are three formulated Indian Standard namely (1) Packaged Drinking Water as per IS 14543 : 2004, (2) Packaged Mineral Water as per IS 13428 : 1998 and (3) Drinking Water as per IS 10500 : 1991, all three of which are distinct and separate. Water is not a single homogenous unit (like oil etc.) so as to be declared as pure . The pure water (where the residues as per various parameters prescribed are nil) would only be distilled water used in batteries, which is not fit for human consumption, as it will pull out all the minerals from the body.

(e) BSI also contended that the expression Pure is misleading and confusing, particularly when there are three different standards prescribed by BIS, i.e. Packaged Drinking Water, Packaged Mineral Water and Drinking Water i.e. Tap Water. At the most the Respondent No. 1 could only say that the Packaged Drinking Water conforms to IS 14543: 2004 and no further, whereas by the impugned judgment, the Respondent No. 1 has been permitted to use a false, misleading and confusing expression Purity Guaranteed , which is not permissible under Rule 37 of the PFA Rules 1955 or the specifications for IS 14543: 2004 The ordinary consumer can only be given the assurance by the that the Packaged Drinking Water conforms to IS 14543: 2004 formulated by BIS, and no further. 

The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2006 held as follows:


a) The definition of the word PURE and its cognates as well as the definition contained in the PFA Rules leaves no room for doubt that the correct connotation of the words packaged drinking water is not what is envisaged in Chemistry.

 b) The meaning ascribed to the word PURE must be seen in the context of the standard prescribed by the Bureau or under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules, since no useful purpose would be served at all in considering it in its absolutely pure state viz. distilled, as per the stance of the Bureau itself.
 c) When an ordinary consumer reads the words PURITY GUARANTEED the thought which would come to his mind is that it is totally safe for human consumption and/or fully compliant with the standards set down by the Bureau. The impugned label assures the consumer nothing more than this. There is, therefore, no justification whatsoever for the prohibiting the use of the words PURITY GUARANTEED .
 d) No infraction that Rule 37 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the PFA Act ) mandates such justification has been established by the Bureau. So far as Rule 41 is concerned the subject food product, namely, packaged drinking water, is not an imitation.
 e) If the argument of the Bureau is to be sustained, a blanket ban would come into effect on the use of the word pure thereby rendering the phrase imitation of any food totally otiose. Such an interpretation is not permissible. Today, various chemicals are employed in food articles especially for flavor. It is in that context that use of the word pure is not allowed.
 f) The primary function of consuming water is to quench ones thirst, which is the same as preventing dehydration. The common perception in hot or tropical countries is that cold water is not only satiating but also refreshing. Even so, the stand of the Respondent No. 1 that the pictorial device or artwork on the label showing snow clad mountains misleads the consumer is stretching the argument beyond reasonable limits
(g) that the use of the words PURE , CRISP , REFRESHING , PURIFIED and PURITY GUARANTEED on a label pertaining to packaged drinking water does not offend any provisions of law. It is further held that the use of the pictorial device/artwork on the label is not misleading and is not prohibited by any law


In LPA, the Division Bench observed as the following

"...In our view also the expression PURITY GUARANTEED , only conveys to the consumers the guarantee that the quality of the product is safe for human consumption and it does not contain any harmful and undesirable substance. The expression PURITY GUARANTEED cannot be stretched by any means to convey that the water is pure H2O, which is not even fit for human consumption for its known chemical properties. Therefore, we uphold the findings of the learned Single Judge that the there is no justification whatsoever for prohibiting the use of the words PURITY GUARANTEED . The counsel for the Appellant in the present appeal also has not been able to sufficiently prove as to how the expression PURITY GUARANTEED contravenes any statutory provisions of the BIS Act and PFA Rules. Therefore, the use of the expression PURITY GUARANTEED in the label of the article Aquafina owned by the respondent No. 1 is permitted and the findings of the learned Single Judge to this extent is upheld. However, we direct the Respondent No. 1 to add to the phrase purity guaranteed as per the BIS Standards as it is the Respondent No. 1 s own case that the product conforms to the standards as per BIS specification..."

On the basis of the above findings, it LPA judgement can be summarized as under, which partly allowed the appeal

(a) The provisions of the BIS Act and the Specifications framed thereunder for packaged drinking water have to be construed widely so as to provide ample power to the BIS in relation to the labelling of articles which includes the mark deployed by the Respondent.

(b) Clause 7.2 of the Specifications of the Indian Standard for packaged drinking water cannot be construed as ultra-vires the Act.

(c) The Respondent No. 1 cannot escape the obligations as prescribed by the provisions of the Act and the specifications framed there under, as the Respondent No. 1 hold a valid BIS licence No. CM/L-9372890 for packaged drinking water under IS 14543: 2004

(d) When the Central Government has power under Section 24 of the Act to give directions on questions of policy, then the statutory enactments such as the PFA certainly have to be construed as a mandate of the Central Government.

(e) It is within the ambit of the power of the Bureau to prohibit such activities which creates confusion in the mind of the public or any way misleads the public about the nature, origin, composition and properties of any good or article sought to be marketed under the BIS standard mark.

(f) The pictorial device snow-capped mountain suggests the packaged mineral water being manufactured and marketed by the respondent No. 1 has its origin in the mountains which creates a misleading impression in the mind of the purchasing public.

(g) The nature of the expression PURITY GUARANTEED does not contravene any provision of BIS Act or PFA Rules and can be used subject to addition of the phrase as per BIS standards.

Trident (Legal Firm) Stake on the Dispute 


The genesis of power and authority of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). and The jurisdiction of BIS is not only with regard to laying down standards but also extends to labeling.
Rule 49(28) of the PFA Rules mandates that the packaged drinking water cannot be sold without the certification mark of Bureau of Indian Standards. Since Packaged Drinking Water has been notified to compulsorily carry BIS Certification under PFA Rules, therefore, BIS has been conferred power to regulate labeling of articles particularly when Section 2(1) of the Act defining a mark clearly includes label. Thus, every sale of packaged drinking water must comply with BIS norms










Image from here