The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its reluctance to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, questioning whether the regulator was yielding to pressure from the food manufacturing industry.
A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said its earlier order asking the FSSAI to revisit the labelling system was not merely a suggestion. The Court gave the regulator two more weeks to reconsider its proposal and place its final decision on record, warning that it could issue further directions if the authorities failed to act, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.
‘Are You Succumbing To Corporate Pressure?’
The Court questioned why the FSSAI was reluctant to introduce warnings that would allow consumers to immediately identify foods containing high levels of sugar, salt or saturated fat.
“Are you taking the court for a toss? ... There is immense pressure at the end of all these corporate houses on you. And you are succumbing to that pressure! We are doing this in public interest. Keep it in mind. We are not doing it for ourselves. Why are you not abiding by our order? What have you done so far? We know the pressure on you. Will you do it on your own or should we pass an order?” the Bench remarked.
The Court stressed that the issue was particularly important for children and questioned whether enough concern was being shown for their health.
“You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?” it asked.
Why Children Are At The Heart Of The Case
Justice Pardiwala highlighted the difference between healthier but more expensive food choices and packaged snacks that are easily accessible to children.
“In our country, how many children can afford dry fruits? And how many of them buy Kurkure? That's all the difference it makes!” he said.
The Court clarified that it was not targeting any particular food product or trying to prevent people from buying packaged food. Its concern was that consumers should know what they were consuming before making a purchase.
“We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming,” the Court said.
The remarks underline the central public-health question in the case: whether nutritional information should merely be available on a packet or should be presented clearly enough for an ordinary consumer to understand the health implications at a glance.
FSSAI Favours Daily-Limit Information
The FSSAI's latest proposal takes a different approach from the warning labels discussed by the Court. Instead of labels such as “High Sodium Level”, “High Sugar Level” or “High Saturated Fat Level”, the regulator proposed displaying recommended daily consumption limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt in a pictorial format.
The proposal is based on the 2024 Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Nutrition Dietary Guidelines for Indians. It would, for example, mention recommended daily limits of 25 grams of sugar, 10 grams of saturated fat and five grams of salt.
The FSSAI also referred to a stakeholder consultation held on March 19, 2026, saying a majority of industry organisations opposed “warning labels” and preferred a system that would allow informed consumer choices “without creating fear amongst the consumers”.
Petitioner Says Numbers Are Not Enough
Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the proposal and argued that providing “numerical nutritional information” was fundamentally different from giving consumers an interpretive warning.
Dvivedi submitted that under the proposed system, consumers would have to find the nutritional figures, compare them with recommended daily limits and perform calculations before deciding whether a product was high in sugar, salt or saturated fat.
Such a system, he argued, would defeat the purpose of front-of-pack labelling, which is meant to help consumers make quick and informed choices while buying food.
The petitioner also argued that requiring consumers to interpret figures could be particularly problematic in India, where a significant section of the population has limited literacy and health literacy. Colour-coded pictorial warnings, the petitioner said, could communicate health risks without requiring mathematical calculations or specialised nutritional knowledge.
‘Should India Remain Underdeveloped?’
Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the FSSAI and the Union of India, argued that international standards for interpretive warnings could not simply be applied to India because dietary patterns differ.
He submitted that Indian food traditionally contains more fried and spicy items than food in Western countries and said international standards for sugar, saturated fat and sodium could not be mechanically applied.
“The difficulty is that each of our traditional foods will have the red symbol on it. Whether it is namkeen etc warning that it is very harmful. The permissible limit for fat is 10g a day. Even two eggs have 11g of fat. Even an egg will have a red symbol. In developed countries food is bland, less sugar, less fat, those yardsticks will not be applicable to Indian traditional food ... Every food item will have a red label on it,” Chahar said.
He also told the Court that one-third of the revenue of micro, small and medium enterprises comes from traditional foods and that such businesses could be affected.
The Court was unconvinced and questioned the argument that India should follow different standards.
“We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says that it’s not possible to match the international standards, more particularly developed countries. Should India remain as an undeveloped country? That’s the question we are putting forward for the Union to consider. The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and, more particularly, children,” the Court said.
The exchange exposes the difficult balance between the commercial concerns of food manufacturers and the consumer's right to clear health information. The Court's remarks, however, left little doubt that it considers public health, particularly children's health, the overriding concern.
Manufacturers’ Concerns Draw Court’s Ire
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the manufacturing industry, supported the FSSAI's proposal. The Court, however, questioned why manufacturers should resist labels that merely give consumers information about what they are buying.
“Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business. Even after these warnings, it’s the discretion of the person who purchases it. He may still purchase it or he may not purchase. Why are you (FSSAI) reluctant to do this?” the Bench asked.
Addressing Singh, the Court said: “You have no say in this Mr. Singh. You are a manufacturer. There’s something to do with the health of citizens. Why are you so desperate? We know the seriousness of the issue.”
Earlier Exercise Failed To Satisfy Court
The proceedings arise from a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front-of-pack labels on packaged food products to indicate their sugar, salt and fat levels.
In April 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the PIL with a direction to an expert committee constituted by the FSSAI to finalise its recommendations. The regulator later filed an affidavit indicating that a final decision had not been taken.
The affidavit said the expert committee had considered the Indian Nutrition Rating system and received more than 14,000 stakeholder comments but had found no consensus on the proposed format. It indicated that further research, stakeholder consultations and analysis of global trends were being considered.
On Feb 10, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the FSSAI's compliance affidavit and observed that the exercise undertaken until then had not produced any “positive or good result”.
The Court illustrated the approach it wanted considered through warnings such as “High Sodium Level”, “High Sugar Level” and “High Saturated Fat Level” and directed the regulator to revisit the issue.
Also Watch:
FSSAI Gets Two Weeks
At Thursday's hearing, the Court made clear that it expected its earlier direction to be followed in spirit rather than treated merely as a technical exercise in nutritional disclosure.
“This is your (Union) last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement,” the Court said.
“If the Union does it on its own, well and good; otherwise we will proceed to pass further directions. We grant two weeks time to place the final decision on record,” it added.
At the heart of the dispute is a simple question with significant consequences: should consumers be expected to interpret nutritional figures themselves, or should potentially unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat be flagged prominently before they buy a product? The Supreme Court has made its preference clear, and the FSSAI now has two weeks to respond.
