The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its reluctance to introduce front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, asking whether the regulator was being influenced by the food manufacturing industry.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a PIL seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods containing high levels of salt, sugar and fat. In April 2025, the Court had directed an FSSAI expert committee to finalise its recommendations.
The Court had earlier asked FSSAI to consider introducing prominent warnings such as “High Sodium Level”, “High Sugar Level” and “High Saturated Fat Level” on packaged foods. However, instead of adopting such interpretive warnings, FSSAI proposed displaying the recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt in pictorial form, based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines.
The Bench expressed strong dissatisfaction with the approach and questioned whether FSSAI was yielding to pressure from corporate food manufacturers. The Court also reminded the regulator that the proceedings were concerned with public health and consumer awareness, and not with protecting any particular commercial interest.
The Union, represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, defended the proposed approach by submitting that international standards could not be mechanically applied to India because Indian dietary patterns differ from those in Western countries. He submitted that traditional Indian foods, including namkeens, could end up carrying warning labels if the proposed thresholds were adopted.
The Bench was not persuaded, observing that the objective of the proposed labelling regime was not to prohibit any food product but to ensure that consumers are made aware of its nutritional content.
The Court also questioned the Union’s reliance on differences between Indian and international dietary standards, asking whether India should continue to maintain lower standards when other countries have adopted stronger food-labelling measures. The Bench further stressed that children’s health must receive particular attention in determining the regulatory framework.
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rajiv Shankar Divedi, opposed FSSAI’s proposal, submitting that simply providing numerical nutritional information was fundamentally different from an interpretive warning. Under the proposed system, he argued, consumers would have to read the nutritional figures, locate the relevant values, compare them with recommended daily limits and perform calculations before determining whether a product was high in sugar, salt or saturated fat.
The petitioner contended that this would defeat the purpose of front-of-pack labelling, which is intended to allow consumers to make an immediate and informed choice at the point of purchase, particularly in a country where health and nutritional literacy may vary considerably.
When Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a manufacturer, supported FSSAI’s proposal, the Bench questioned the participation of food manufacturers in the matter. The Court ultimately granted the Union and FSSAI two weeks to place their final decision on record, indicating that it may issue further directions if the government does not act.