Introduction:
The Supreme Court of India recently expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged food products. The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in proceedings arising out of a miscellaneous application filed in a previously disposed writ petition.
The original public interest litigation had been instituted by 3S and Our Health Society, seeking directions to the Union of India and FSSAI to introduce clear, prominent, and mandatory front-of-package warning labels indicating levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fats in packaged food items. The petitioners contended that such labelling was essential to safeguard public health and to enable consumers to make informed dietary choices in light of rising lifestyle diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.
The writ petition had earlier been disposed of on April 9, 2025, after the Court was informed that FSSAI had initiated steps to implement Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) through proposed amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. At that stage, the Supreme Court had directed the Expert Committee constituted by FSSAI to submit its recommendations within three months, so that necessary amendments could be effected. The matter was directed to be listed thereafter for reporting compliance.
However, when the case was taken up pursuant to a compliance affidavit dated January 30, 2026, filed by Dr. Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director of FSSAI, the Court found that the exercise undertaken thus far had not culminated in any concrete or enforceable outcome. The Bench, observing that the PIL raised an important issue concerning the right to health of citizens, granted four weeks’ time to the authority to file a fresh response and to take into consideration the petitioner’s suggestion regarding clear warning labels on packaged food products.
Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners:
The petitioners, represented by Advocate-on-Record Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, contended that the introduction of mandatory front-of-package warning labels is an urgent public health necessity. It was argued that India is currently witnessing a rapid surge in non-communicable diseases linked to excessive consumption of processed foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats. In such circumstances, the absence of simple, visible, and easy-to-understand warnings on packaged foods deprives consumers of meaningful information.
The petitioners emphasized that the existing labelling framework under the 2020 Regulations is inadequate. Although nutritional information is required to be disclosed, it is often printed in small fonts on the back of the packaging and is difficult for the average consumer to interpret. They argued that expecting consumers to decipher complex nutritional charts or percentage daily value references places an unreasonable burden on them.
It was further submitted that internationally, many jurisdictions have adopted simplified front-of-pack warning systems, including traffic light labelling, high-in-sugar warnings, and star rating models. Such systems are designed to communicate nutritional risks at a glance, thereby enabling informed decision-making. The petitioners urged that India should align itself with global best practices and adopt a warning-based model that directly alerts consumers if a product exceeds recommended thresholds for sugar, salt, or saturated fats.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel suggested that pre-packaged food products should mandatorily carry a prominent warning on the wrapper itself, indicating whether the product is high in sugar, salt, or saturated fats. The Court recorded that this suggestion appeared to have merit and directed the authority to consider this aspect.
The petitioners further argued that delay in implementing effective front-of-pack labelling undermines the fundamental right to health guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. They contended that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect citizens from preventable health risks and that regulatory inertia in the face of mounting scientific evidence is unacceptable.
They also submitted that stakeholder disagreement cannot become a pretext for indefinite postponement. While consultations are necessary, the ultimate responsibility to safeguard public health lies with the regulator. The petitioners maintained that prolonged deliberations without decisive action defeat the very purpose of the PIL.
Stand of the Union of India and FSSAI:
The Union of India, represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, along with FSSAI, defended the steps taken thus far. The compliance affidavit filed on behalf of FSSAI detailed the deliberations undertaken by its Expert Committee.
According to the affidavit, the Expert Committee had examined the proposed Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) model notified in 2022. However, it observed that there was no consensus among stakeholders regarding the star rating algorithm. Concerns were raised about the scientific basis, applicability across diverse food categories, and the operational feasibility of the model.
The affidavit stated that the Committee had opined that feasibility could not be pre-emptively determined without operationalising the model. In other words, the real-world impact and practicality of the proposed system would only become evident upon implementation.
The affidavit also referred to the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2025, notified in February 2025. These draft amendments proposed certain changes, including requirements relating to the display of nutrition information in bold letters. However, the matter was deferred by the Food Authority in its 49th meeting held on November 24, 2025, and was proposed to be placed before a subsequent meeting for further consideration.
FSSAI further informed the Court that it intended to conduct additional research, undertake systematic mapping of packaged food products across various categories, carry out consumer surveys to assess label usage, review global trends in front-of-pack nutrition labelling, and hold wider consultations with stakeholders, including small and medium enterprises (SMEs), before finalising any regulatory amendments.
The regulator submitted that the issue is complex and has significant economic implications for food manufacturers, particularly smaller enterprises. It argued that any abrupt or poorly designed labelling mandate could adversely affect industry stakeholders and potentially lead to unintended consequences. Therefore, a balanced and evidence-based approach was necessary.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
After examining the compliance affidavit and hearing submissions from both sides, the Supreme Court expressed prima facie dissatisfaction with the progress made by FSSAI. The Bench observed that the exercise undertaken thus far had not yielded any “positive or good result.”
The Court underscored that the PIL was filed with a specific purpose and that it raised an important issue concerning the right to health of citizens. It indicated that prolonged deliberations without tangible outcomes are inconsistent with the seriousness of the matter.
The Bench took note of the petitioner’s suggestion that pre-packaged food products should carry a warning in the form of front-of-package labelling on the wrapper or packet itself. It observed that such labelling practices are prevalent internationally and appeared to be worthy of consideration.
While refraining from issuing immediate mandatory directions, the Court directed the authority to take the petitioner’s suggestion into account and granted four weeks’ time to file a fresh response. The matter was ordered to be listed thereafter for further hearing.
The Court’s order signals judicial impatience with regulatory delay, particularly where public health concerns are involved. At the same time, the Bench maintained procedural restraint by affording the authority an opportunity to respond comprehensively.
By emphasizing the right to health, the Court reaffirmed that food labelling is not merely a technical regulatory issue but one that directly impacts constitutional guarantees. The proceedings remain pending for further ompliance and adjudication.