Vegetarian Activism and Cosmetic Labelling: From Mandatory to Optional Veg/Non-Veg Declarations
*****
Jawahar Lal, Managing Partner,
Aastha Sachdeva, Associate
Introduction:
Man by nature is an omnivore. Earlier, we believed Neanderthals ate meat alone, but later discoveries show that they ate both meat and plant-based food, depending on their geographical location.
Indians ate meat, as reflected in the Vedas. Vegetarianism developed later, around 500 BCE, inspired by the philosophy of Ahimsa (non-violence) in Jainism and Buddhism and later adopted by Hinduism. For centuries thereafter, non-vegetarianism did not acquire a religious taboo.
Studies suggest that meat consumption is closer to 80% of Indian population1, with dominant castes largely contributing to the vegetarian population, although government reports record it as 71%2. The actual percentage of non-vegetarianism is acknowledged to be under-reported, largely because of cultural and social pressure.
Across civilizations and religions, the dominant groups (including dominant castes in India), influence social, lifestyle and even personal preferences. Over the past few decades, the social hegemony of the dominant castes has grown, and they enforce their belief/value systems on the rest of the population, with subtle or even brazen control.
With this growing influence, the minority vegetarian section of the Indian society has been exerting its authority, and seeking to enforce vegetarianism on the majority, through religious, cultural control and even through legal means. In fact, the majority omnivorous population has, in turn, internalised these beliefs and increasingly views itself as an outlier, whose food habits conflict with prevailing religious and cultural norms.
Genesis of vegetarianism in Cosmetics:
In 2001, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Delhi High Court (DHC) seeking directions to manufacturers of drugs, medicines and cosmetics to display an easily recognisable symbol conveying the Vegetarian/Non-Vegetarian origin of their ingredients. The DHC by its Judgment in Ozair Husain Vs. Union of India3, held that consumers have a right to know whether the cosmetics and drugs (except life-saving drugs), are of non-veg origin and directed the Govt. of India to implement the same.
The Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association, as well as the Union of India challenged the DHC Judgment before the Supreme Court (SC). By its judgment dated 07.03.2013 in Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association v. Ozair Husain4 (“Indian Soaps”), the SC overruled the DHC Judgment, and held that the food habits of a section of Indian society cannot determine the regulatory requirement.
The SC also noted that the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (“DTAB”), had rejected the proposal in 1999 and held that the Union Government could not be directed to amend the Drugs & Cosmetics Act/Rules (“D&C Act/ Rules”) to mandate disclosure of the vegetarian/non-vegetarian source of drugs or cosmetics.
Veg Logo Amendment to Legal Metrology Rules:
Having realized that D&C Act/ Rules could not be amended without consulting the statutory authority DTAB, the Union Govt. instead amended the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 (“LMPC Rules”), effective from 01.07.2014.
Rule 6 of the LMPC Rules sets out the declarations to be made on a packaged commodity5. Rule 6 (8) was inserted mandating that soap, shampoos, toothpastes & other cosmetics/ toiletries "shall bear" at the top of its principal display panel, a red or brown dot for products of non-vegetarian origin and a green dot for products of vegetarian origin.
Challenge to Veg Logo Amendment:
After the amendment, the LM Department stepped in, to protect the right of vegetarians to information of veg/non-veg source on cosmetics, and issued Notices across India, for non-compliance. In fact, a Notice was issued to Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited (RBIPL) for not declaring Veg/Non-Veg source on the label of Harpic Toilet Cleaner. Possibly the LM officials assumed, toiletries include toilet cleaners also!
RBIPL challenged the Veg Logo Amendment, and J-Law Offices represented RBIPL before the DHC6. It was argued that the D&C Act & Rules are the legislative framework for regulation of cosmetics and the power to make Rules is circumscribed by Section 33 of the D&C Act, which mandates that the Central Government shall make Rules in consultation with or on the recommendation of the DTAB established under Section 5 of the D&C Act. Hence, it was argued that no prescription can be made under the LM Act, for labelling of cosmetics including Veg/Non-Veg Logo. Also, consultation of DTAB was necessary as directed by the SC in Indian Soaps, which held: “Without fruitful consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board, no amendment can be made or suggested to change the label of the drugs and cosmetics.” as mandated under Section 33(2)(j) of the D&C Act.
It was urged before the DHC that Section 33(2)(j) of the D&C Act read with Rule 148 of the D&C Rules specifically deals with the labelling of packaged Drugs and Cosmetics. Further, Rule 150A read with Schedule S of the D&C Rules prescribed the standards to be maintained for Cosmetics. However, the LM Act was framed only to provide for, declaration in relation to weight, measure etc.; hence the prescription to provide Veg/ Non-Veg Logo under the LMPC Rules travels beyond the scope and object of the parent Act.
It was submitted that Rule 6 (8) of the LMPC Rules, was inserted without adopting the Consultation Process, including seeking inputs from stakeholders/public and in case, doesn’t serve any purpose, and is impractical and impossible to implement.
DHC by its Order dated 02.03.2015 granted interim orders restraining the LM authorities from initiating coercive steps for non-compliance by RBIPL and also admitted the writ petition.
Cosmetics Rules, 2020 do not mandate declaration of Veg/Non-Veg Logo:
The Cosmetics Rules came into force on 15.12.2020, and while providing labelling requirements for cosmetics in Rule 34, it did not mandate insertion of Veg/Non-Veg logo.
Thereafter Veg/Non-Veg Logo issue was reconsidered by the DTAB at its 86th meeting held on 13.04.2021 and it noted that there is no clarity or system in India for certifying ingredients as vegetarian or non-vegetarian and making the indication mandatory would complicate regulation and add regulatory burden on the stakeholders. Hence, DTAB suggested that Veg/Non-Veg Logo should be voluntary and left to the manufacturer. The same was reiterated by CDSCO in its Advisory dated 10.09.2021.
DHC’s direction to constitute a Committee to reconsider the issue:
The writ petition filed by RBIPL came up for hearing before the DHC on 07.02.2026. After hearing the parties, the Delhi HC observed that the LMPC Rules prescribe Veg/Non-Veg Logo as mandatory, while the DTAB has advised the same to be voluntary; hence there is a clear contradiction. Therefore, both Departments should take a decision after stakeholder consultation as to whether the Veg/Non-Veg Logo should be mandatory or voluntary.
Consultation between DCGI, Legal Metrology & Stakeholders:
Based on the DHC’s directions, members from the DCGI, CDSCO, MCA, Govt. of India and Controller, Legal Metrology etc., sought the views of stakeholders on 09.04.2026. We participated on behalf of RBIPL and submitted the legal and factual issues arising from Veg/Non-Veg Logo implementation. Our principal legal argument was that D&C Act and Cosmetics Rules, 2020 are the regulatory regime for cosmetics, and prescription of Veg/Non-Veg logo under the LMPC Rules falls outside the scope of the LM Act.
On facts, we submitted that milk, honey etc., are used in several cosmetic products; while treated as ‘vegetarian’ under the Food Safety Standards Act, such exemption is unavailable under the D&C Act. Hence, if tested, cosmetics containing milk, honey etc. may reflect as animal sourced because of the presence of animal protein, requiring the manufacturer to affix Non-Veg, dissuading consumers from purchasing such products, or face prosecution under the LM Act.
Also, unlike food articles, cosmetics are manufactured with complex formulations containing ingredients which may be from plant, animal or synthetic sources. For instance, Glycerine, a basic ingredient for soap, is manufactured from triglycerides derived from animal fats, vegetable oils or synthetic sources. It is impossible for a soap manufacturer purchasing Glycerine and other ingredients from third parties to ascertain the source from which every ingredient is derived.
Further, most manufacturers purchase necessary basic ingredients largely from international sources, which undergo multiple stages of manufacture/purification before use in cosmetics. Hence, at the final manufacturing stage, it is impossible to trace the origin of each ingredient, even if manufacturers set up modern labs for testing.
In addition, MSME cosmetic manufacturers who import ingredients cannot be expected to set up state-of-the-art laboratories to ascertain the source of each ingredient. Assuming a raw material supplier used plant sourced or animal sourced ingredients and the process involves heating at 70°C -95°C, the DNA strands begin to separate/break down. Even DNA testing or genome sequencing of the finished cosmetics, may therefore not ascertain the veg or non-veg origin of the raw materials.
Earlier, the DTAB itself had noted that in the absence of a clear certification system, declaration of Veg/Non-Veg Logo is burdensome and impossible to implement.
Post consultation, amendment making declaration of Veg/Non-Veg logo, optional:
After consultations with the stakeholders and internal and inter-ministerial discussions, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs notified the amendment to Rule 6 of the LMPC Rules on 21.09.20267.
By the amendment, Rule 6(8) of the LMPC Rules (which made declaration of Veg/Non-Veg Logo mandatory), was deleted. The same requirement was inserted as Rule 6(4A)(d) of the LMPC Rules, as optional/voluntary.
There are numerous erroneous reports by leading media houses, Influencers and even by Advocates stating that, even post-amendment, declaration of Veg/Non-Veg Logo is mandatory. It appears this mistaken interpretation results from misreading Rule 6 (4A) of the LMPC Rules, which states:
“(4A) Nothing in this rule shall preclude a manufacturer or packer or importer to declare the following on the package, in addition to the mandatory declarations-…”
It appears, the words “in addition to the mandatory declarations”, in Rule 6 (4A) have been misread to be mandatory, whereas they merely connote that in addition to other mandatory declarations, a manufacturer may make additional declarations, at its discretion. For instance, Rule 6 (4A) (c) of the LMPC Rules, states:
“logos of Government schemes, such as Swatch Bharat Mission, where such use is authorised by the Central Government.”
Hence, Government-scheme logos cannot be mandatory under Rule 6(4A). Nor would Rule 6(8) have been deleted only to make the same requirement mandatory again under Rule 6(4A)(d).
Conclusion:
It appears in 2014, Veg/Non-Veg Logo was made mandatory for cosmetics, by amending LMPC Rules, to cater to the ‘sensitivities’ of vegetarians, and as an act of Vegetarian Vigilantism, though the amendment was outside the scope of the LM Act and contrary to DTAB inputs. In fact, even making it optional is unnecessary; as a prohibition or a mandatory condition requires statutory prescription, not an ‘optional’ suggestion.
Several cosmetics manufacturers already affix the Veg Logo (green dot), and the vegetarians can opt for such products rather than imposing their notions across the industry based on perceived injustice!
A person does not become non-vegetarian merely by using cosmetics having non-veg ingredients, which in any case are not consumed! In Indian Soaps, the SC observed that if consumers claim a right to know whether a medicine or cosmetic contains non-vegetarian ingredients, similar claims may arise concerning the precise origin of vegetarian ingredients, depending on food habits. Such habits vary by person, place and religion: Jains avoid vegetables grown below ground; milk and honey are treated as vegetarian (though it is not of veg origin); eggetarians otherwise claim to be vegetarian; and foods avoided by some non-vegetarians are consumed elsewhere. Therefore, individual food habits cannot determine the contours of law.
Animal products are also routinely used in everyday goods, including leather, wool, silk and animal-hair products. Even ingestible products such as medicines contain animal-derived ingredients without equivalent Veg/Non-Veg labelling: Gelatine and Magnesium stearate are used in capsules/tablets, cochineal/carmine as colouring agents and lactose as a carrier, stabilizer or bulking agent.
The regulatory authorities like DCGI and DTAB have long recognised that no reliable process/protocol exists to determine the Veg/Non-Veg source of cosmetic ingredients and that a mandatory declaration would create a regulatory conundrum. They therefore favoured manufacturer discretion, as reflected in the CDSCO Advisory dated 10.09.2021.
******
Sample Registration System Baseline Survey 2014, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India
AIR 2003 Delhi 103, Civil Writ Petition No.837 of 2001
(2013) 3 SCC 641, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5644 OF 2003
“pre-packaged commodity” means a commodity which without the purchaser being present is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or not, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined quantity.
W.P.(C) 1989/2015
