Top News

The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Central government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its failure to take a decision on introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, saying it would pass further directions if the Centre failed to act.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran said the Court was concerned with protecting the health of citizens, particularly growing children, and questioned the Union's reluctance to adopt stronger nutritional warnings despite the Court's earlier directions. The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Union, that the government had to comply with what the Court had asked it to do and questioned whether it was succumbing to pressure from corporate houses.

Government Cites Concerns Over Traditional Foods

The Court said it was acting in the public interest and not for itself, and asked the Union what steps it had taken so far on the issue. Chahar sought to explain the government's concerns, submitting that strict warning labels could result in traditional Indian foods, including namkeen, carrying a red warning symbol because of their fat or salt content. He said international nutritional standards may not be directly applicable to Indian food habits and pointed out that even two eggs could cross the permissible daily fat limit.

Court Rejects Excuses, Prioritises Public Health

The bench, however, rejected the argument that such concerns should prevent the government from creating greater public awareness about what consumers were eating. "Why? You don't want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?", the Court asked. The Court said consumers were already aware that packaged foods contain sugar, fat and carbohydrates, but front-of-pack warnings would provide a simple means of informing them about the nutritional risks before they purchased a product. It also rejected the argument that warnings could affect manufacturers' businesses, observing that the ultimate decision to purchase a product would still remain with the consumer.

The Court questioned the reluctance of FSSAI to implement such a system and stressed that manufacturers' commercial interests could not override public health concerns.

'We are not against any particular product'

During the hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a manufacturer, sought to make submissions. The Court told him that the issue concerned the health of citizens and that manufacturers could not dictate the policy on the matter. Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, appearing in the matter, suggested that food products could be categorised differently and said the nutritional content of products should also be displayed. The Court clarified that it is not against any particular product but is only concerned about consumers' awareness of what they are consuming.

"In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming", the Court said.

India Must Meet International Standards: SC

In its order, the bench noted that it had earlier dealt with the issue in its February 10, 2026 order and had recorded its observations in paragraphs 9 to 12. The Court said the petitioner's counsel had drawn its attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, which appeared to indicate a position contrary to the suggestions earlier made by the Court. The Union had submitted that it was difficult to follow international standards relating to packaging and nutritional warnings. The Court refused to accept this position and said India could not use the standards of other countries as a reason to avoid stronger safeguards for public health.

"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 an undeveloped country? That's the question we are putting forward for the Union to consider," it questioned. The Court said India should demonstrate to the world that it was serious about protecting the health of its citizens, particularly children. "The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and more particularly children", it added.

Centre Given 'Last Chance' to Act

The Court granted the Union two weeks to place its final decision on record. It made clear that the Centre would have to decide whether to implement the proposed warnings on its own or face further directions from the Court. "This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement", it said.

The case relates to a plea in which the Supreme Court had earlier asked FSSAI to consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. The proposed warnings are intended to allow consumers to identify such nutritional content more easily before purchasing packaged food.

The issue has also been discussed by Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee, chaired by Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha MP Milind Deora. Deora has advocated studying Singapore's A-to-D Nutri-Grade system for possible adoption in India. The Union Health Ministry has separately proposed displaying "sugar and oil boards" in schools, offices and public institutions as visual behavioural nudges to encourage healthier dietary habits and reduce excessive consumption of sugar and oil.