In a landmark ruling on consumer right to informed choice, the Madras High Court has held that disclosure of microplastics is the ‘barest essential minimum’ under the FSSAI Act, even where scientific certainty on health effects is still evolving. The Court clarified that where FSSAI, packaging associations and packaged drinking water manufacturers all admit the presence of micro/nano plastics in plastic-packaged water, sugar and salt, the consumer’s right to informed choice under Sections 18(1)(f) and 18(2)(e) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 mandates disclosure on the label as the barest essential minimum, and such disclosure cannot be treated as premature or disproportionate merely because conclusive epidemiological proof of harm is still under scientific investigation.
The Court upheld the Feb 06, 2026, direction requiring all plastic/PET bottles selling water and plastic-packaged sugar and salt to carry a bold red label of font size not less than 10 stating ‘This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics’ or ‘This Sugar/Salt may contain Micro/Nano Plastics’. The Court rejected the argument that the labelling direction was premature or disproportionate, holding that Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 uses the words ‘potential’, ‘probable’ and ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’, and therefore provisional risk-management measures including disclosure are squarely contemplated even where scientific uncertainty persists.
The Court rejected the industry plea that no other country mandates such labelling, observing that India’s conditions of PET consumption, hot and humid climate, storage practices, counterfeiting and refilling are unique and not comparable with developed jurisdictions where tap water is potable.
The Division Bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that FSSAI, PACE and FPDWMA all admit and do not deny the presence of micro/nano plastics in packaged water, sugar or salt, and that if something is present inside the product, it would be mandatory to disclose it on the label, since the core principle behind labelling is disclosure of information and truth. The Court noted that micro/nano plastics are physical agents capable of posing a hazard with the potential to cause adverse health effects, as these bio-non-degradable particles pass through body barriers into the bloodstream and have been detected in placental samples and breast milk.
The Court observed that the words used by Parliament in Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 are ‘potential’ and not ‘actual’, ‘probable’ rather than ‘certain’, and ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ rather than ‘with adequate proof’, and therefore the directions cannot be termed as disproportionate. The Court further observed that irrespective of whether microplastics originate from the source water or the packaging, if micro/nano plastics are found in the water inside the bottle, the consumer should be informed.
The Court rejected the argument that developed countries do not have such labelling, noting that tap water in those countries is potable, that PET bottled water is the predominant option at meetings, conferences, weddings and travel in India, that India consumed about 1.9 million tonnes of PET in 2024-25 (of which bottles were 92%), and that conditions of use, storage, handling, and counterfeiting/refilling are unique to India and not comparable with other jurisdictions. The Court also noted that the concept of migration limits prescribed under BIS standards (IS 12252) is not applicable to microplastics, since microplastics/nano plastics are physically dispersed as contaminants and not a case of migration.
Briefly, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) filed review application, while the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations (FPDWMA) filed petition seeking to recall/review the order. The original petition was filed by G. Subramania Koushik concerning environmental issues in the Nilgiris district, and the matter had been treated as a continuing mandamus with multiple parties impleaded over time, including Hindustan Unilever, Nestle India, Britannia, Parle Agro, ITC, Pepsico, Mondelez, Procter & Gamble, Cavinkare, Hatsun Agro, and AAVIN.
The order was passed after FSSAI’s own study confirmed the presence of microplastics in bottled drinking water collected from Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra, and also reported higher levels of microplastics in sugar and salt packed in plastic/polythene packaging. The said order directed FSSAI to issue a notification requiring all plastic/PET bottles selling water and plastic-packaged sugar/salt to carry a label in bold red letters of font size not less than 10 stating ‘This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics’ or ‘This Sugar/Salt may contain Micro/Nano Plastics’, to be implemented within four weeks.
