The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its reluctance to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it may pass directions if the regulator fails to act.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a public interest litigation seeking warning labels on packaged food products to enable consumers to identify their salt, sugar and fat content. Taking note of the minutes of an FSSAI meeting indicating hesitation over the proposed measure, the Bench questioned whether the food regulator was yielding to pressure from food manufacturers.
The Supreme Court reprimanded the FSSAI for allegedly yielding to corporate interests, demanding to know if the authority was taking the court lightly. It emphasized that its intervention was strictly motivated by public interest and the well-being of young children.
The Supreme Court brushed aside arguments that traditional Indian snacks would be adversely hit by warning labels, demanding to know if the regulator prioritized industry interests over the health of the public and young children. The Court clarified that it was not targeting any particular food product but wanted consumers to be made aware of what they were consuming.
Reaffirming its focus on public awareness rather than targeting specific brands, the Court highlighted the widespread consumption of packaged snacks among children versus healthier alternatives like dry fruits. The Bench noted that its sole objective is ensuring consumers are fully informed about what they eat
Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Union and FSSAI, submitted that such a system may not be suitable for India because traditional Indian foods generally contain higher levels of salt, fat and sugar than food products in some developed countries. He argued that applying the proposed standards could result in warning labels being placed on a wide range of Indian foods, including namkeens and even eggs.
The Court, however, was unconvinced, observing that consumers were already aware that food contains sugar, fat and carbohydrates, and that the purpose of the proposed labels was to create greater public awareness. The Bench also questioned why the FSSAI was reluctant to introduce a measure that would allow consumers to make informed choices.
The Bench acknowledged that food producers might object due to commercial concerns, but emphasized that warning labels simply allow buyers to make an informed decision on what to purchase. The ASG submitted that traditional foods account for a significant share of the revenue of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which could be affected by the proposed labelling requirements.
Clarifying that public health cannot take a backseat to commercial interests, the Bench issued a two-week deadline for the Centre and FSSAI to submit their final decision. The Court issued a stern warning, noting that this would be their final opportunity before the Bench dictates its judgment.
The Court also rejected the Union’s position that India should adopt different standards from those followed internationally, observing that the country should demonstrate its commitment to the health of its citizens, particularly children.
The Bench further questioned the intervention by a food manufacturer represented by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, observing that manufacturers could not have a decisive say in a matter primarily concerning public health.
The proceedings arise from a PIL seeking front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods with high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. In April 2025, the Court had directed an expert committee constituted by the FSSAI to finalise its recommendations on the issue.
The FSSAI subsequently informed the Court that its expert committee had considered the Indian Nutrition Rating system and received more than 14,000 comments from stakeholders, but there was no consensus on the proposed format. It had indicated that further research, consultations and analysis of global practices were being considered.
The Supreme Court had thereafter directed the FSSAI to consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels, noting that such labelling is widely used internationally to help consumers make informed dietary choices.
The Court has now granted the Centre and FSSAI two weeks to place their final decision on record, failing which it indicated that it may issue further directions.
The post Supreme Court to FSSAI: Ensure consumers know what they are eating, decide on warning labels in two weeks appeared first on India Legal.