The Supreme Court on 13 August directed India's food regulator to take a final decision within two weeks on implementing front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods, after the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) submitted a proposal for red hexagonal labels on products high in sugar, saturated fat, and salt.
The order came in a Public Interest Litigation filed by 3S And Our Health Society, seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged foods high in fat, sugar, and salt. The court also rejected the argument that India cannot implement global best practices, citing successful examples from Chile, Israel, and Canada.
FSSAI's Proposal
According to a compliance affidavit placed before the bench on Friday, the FSSAI has proposed red-coloured hexagonal warning labels that would be displayed on products high in any two or more specified nutrients: added saturated fat, added sugar, and salt. The thresholds would be based on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, published by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition.
The labels would carry declarations such as "High Fat," "High Sugar," "High Salt," and "Highly Sweetened Beverage," depending on the product's composition. The warning would be in a font size one point larger than the font used in the nutrition information table on the back of the pack, making it more prominent.
The regulator has proposed a two-phase implementation. In Phase I, products high in two or more specified nutrients, along with specified sweetened beverages, would come under the warning regime. In Phase II, the requirement would extend to products high in any one of the specified nutrients. The FSSAI stated that the approach would give the food industry adequate time for reformulation while ensuring consumers' right to information is not compromised.
The proposal includes exemptions for single-ingredient foods naturally high in fat, sugar, or salt, such as ghee, salt, jaggery, and honey.
Court's Remarks
The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, questioned whether the FSSAI had changed its stance after the court's earlier rap and asked if the regulator was succumbing to pressure from the food industry. The court refused to hear the counsel for the food industry, arguing that public health cannot be held hostage to commercial interests.
"The environment surrounding children and us is quietly dictating our habits. A standard labelling format would reduce confusion and make it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing," the court said, adding that a child is exposed to ultra-processed foods (UPF) from a young age.
The court noted that India has been deliberating over warning labels for over a decade but they are yet to be implemented. It warned that if the government did not act on its own, it would pass further directions.
Evidence and Data
The court cited a 2025 UNICEF report on child nutrition, which found that the incidence of overweight among schoolchildren and adolescents (5-19 years old) rose fivefold from 5% to 10% in the two decades to 2020. Citing the Economic Survey (2025-26), the court noted that the prevalence of obesity doubled between 2009 and 2023, a period during which the UPF market size grew by 150%.
The order also cited the National Family Health Survey, observing that consumption of processed foods is linked to higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.
The 2023-24 consumption expenditure survey showed that rural families spend nearly 10% of their per-capita monthly expenditure on processed food and beverages, more than on either education or health. Dietary guidelines released in 2024 stated that protein contributes just 7-9% of daily energy intake in Indian diets, half the recommended level.
Reactions and Next Steps
The court has asked the government to make a final decision by 27 August. The next hearing is scheduled for 10 September.
Arun Gupta, of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), said, "The Supreme Court has left nothing to chance... The FSSAI has no more excuses."
Experts and the Economic Survey have suggested measures including advertising curbs, taxation, and a ban on sugary beverage sales in school canteens. Evidence from countries like Chile and Canada shows that warning labels can reduce purchases of unhealthy foods and encourage manufacturers to develop healthier products.
The case will be heard next by the Supreme Court on 10 September.