Delhi High Court Seeks Replies on Alleged Paneer Substitutes
On October 14, the court issued notices in response to a public-interest petition concerning products represented to consumers as paneer despite allegedly containing no dairy ingredients. A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice Sanjay Singh gave the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Centre and the Delhi government six weeks to submit their replies.
The case was brought by Ridhima Singh and Avlokiteshwar Padmapani Sidharth. Their petition asks authorities to gather samples and examine paneer, as well as foods marketed or described as paneer, during the festive period. It also seeks action to stop the production, distribution, sale or serving of dairy-analogue paneer in Delhi.
The petitioners distinguish between paneer, which they describe as a standardised dairy food under India’s food-safety rules, and analogue products made with non-milk components. They said such substitutes do not provide the same nutritional value as the dairy product covered by the statutory description.
They argued that diners ordering a paneer dish from a hotel or restaurant may not be told whether the food contains paneer or a substitute. The requested disclosure rules would cover hotels, restaurants, caterers, eateries, cloud kitchens and online food businesses, requiring them to identify the use of analogue or non-dairy ingredients.
The petition said Gujarat, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra had already taken measures concerning non-dairy paneer. It asked the authorities to conduct testing and apply measures against products in which essential milk constituents have been replaced with vegetable fat, vegetable oil or other ingredients not derived from milk.
“A consumer who knowingly purchases a product correctly disclosed as an analogue or non-dairy substitute makes an informed choice,” the petition said. It added that a customer ordering “paneer” should receive a product meeting the legal description rather than an undisclosed substitute.
During the hearing, the bench said: “They are doing it, they have placed the statistics before us to that effect.” The court’s notices concern the petition’s requests for testing, enforcement against allegedly misrepresented products and compulsory disclosure by businesses using non-dairy substitutes.
