The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran gave the Centre and FSSAI a two-week ultimatum to reconsider front-of-pack warning labels.
The court warned it would intervene directly and pronounce a verdict if the authorities failed to act on its directions.
Justice Pardiwala rejected arguments that warning labels would hurt traditional Indian food sales, questioning if India should remain underdeveloped.
The Supreme Court issued an ultimatum that the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) must review packaging labels warning consumers about high sugar, salt and saturated fat content within two weeks, LiveLaw reported. This directive follows a public interest litigation by 3S and Our Health Society.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran warned of direct judicial intervention if the regulators fail to act. "If you can't do it, we will," the bench warned, according to an NDTV reported. The judges also questioned if lobbying influenced the state. "The matter concerns the health of citizens—particularly growing children—and decisions regarding it should not be influenced by corporate pressure," the court stated.
The bench clarified that its February 10 order was a binding directive to the FSSAI rather than a mere recommendation and the regulator must comply with the instructions.
Proposed Labels Spark Debate
The FSSAI has proposed replacing interpretive warning labels—such as "High Sodium Level", "High Sugar Level" and "High Saturated Fat Level"—with pictorial depictions of recommended daily limits, LiveLaw reported. Based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, these limits include 25 grams of sugar, 10 grams of saturated fat and 5 grams of salt. The FSSAI referred to a stakeholder consultation on March 19, 2026, where a majority of industry organisations opposed warning labels to avoid "creating fear amongst the consumers".
Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, representing the petitioner, opposed the proposal. He said that numerical information forces consumers to calculate values, defeating the purpose of immediate front-of-pack warnings, the report said. Dvivedi highlighted that such disclosures create significant hurdles for individuals with limited literacy and health literacy.
Corporate Pressure Under Scrutiny
On February 10, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the FSSAI's compliance affidavit, observing that the exercise had not produced any "positive or good result", and directed its Expert Committee to revisit the issue. Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, defending the Centre, argued that international standards cannot apply to traditional Indian foods. He said that warning labels could result in red warning marks appearing on products like namkeen.
Justice Pardiwala strongly rejected this argument, asking: "Should India remain an underdeveloped country?" LiveLaw reported. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the manufacturing industry, supported the FSSAI's pictorial proposal. However, the court stated that the purpose of a warning label is to inform consumers, not prevent sales. "Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know," the court stated, NDTV reported.
Justice Pardiwala also drew attention to children's access to healthy foods. "In our country, how many children can afford dry fruits? And how many of them buy Kurkure? That's all the difference it makes!" he said. The court stated that the matter cannot be treated merely as a technical exercise in nutritional disclosure. The bench reiterated that the February 10 order aimed to protect public health, particularly children's health. The court warned that if the authorities fail to comply within two weeks, "a verdict will be pronounced next time."
