The Supreme Court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to clarify several aspects of its proposal to introduce front-of-package warning labels on packaged foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt, including the scientific basis for implementing the labelling regime in two phases.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acknowledged the “significant progress” made by the FSSAI but observed that several details governing the practical implementation of its proposed front-of-package labelling system remained ambiguous.
Buy Now: E-Magazine: 100 Landmark Customs Judgments
The Court directed the FSSAI to file an affidavit answering 13 specific questions within 10 days. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 28, 2026.
The order was passed in a miscellaneous application filed in the writ petition concerning the introduction of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) for packaged foods. The Court had earlier highlighted the link between foods high in fat, sugar or salt and health conditions such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
The Court reiterated that appropriate warning labels could enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and could also encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products, thereby contributing to a healthier food environment.
In an affidavit filed before the Court, the FSSAI stated that it had prepared a proposal to display information concerning added saturated fat, added sugar and salt in a pictorial form on the front of packaged food products.
Under the proposal, products high in any two or more specified nutrients of concern would carry a prominent red hexagonal warning label containing declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” or “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”, as applicable.
The warning would be printed in a font one point larger than that used in the nutritional information table on the back of the package.
The FSSAI proposed to exempt single-ingredient food products and products inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt, including ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey. Such products would, however, remain subject to other applicable food safety and labelling requirements.
The authority proposed a two-phase implementation. Phase I would apply to products high in two or more specified nutrients and to certain sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning requirement to products high in even one of the specified nutrients.
The FSSAI said the phased system would allow consumers to become accustomed to the warning labels and give the food industry adequate time to reformulate its products.
The Supreme Court questioned the basis for restricting Phase I to products containing excessive quantities of two or more nutrients of concern.
The petitioner contended that excess sugar, salt and saturated fat were independently harmful and affected health through different biological pathways. Excess sugar was independently linked to diabetes and metabolic diseases, excess salt to hypertension, and excess saturated fat to cardiovascular disease and adverse cholesterol levels.
According to the petitioner, requiring a product to be high in at least two nutrients before attracting a warning label lacked scientific support and would substantially reduce the number of products covered during Phase I.
The Court also noticed an apparent inconsistency between the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 and the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022.
While the 2024 Guidelines described HFSS foods as those prepared with excessive cooking oils or fats and higher quantities of added sugar and salt, the 2022 draft regulations referred to processed foods containing high levels of saturated fat, total sugar or sodium.
The Court said that the different use of the expressions “and” and “or” reflected confusion that must be resolved as a matter of priority. The basis of the phased strategy should thereafter be determined in accordance with the final scientific definition of HFSS foods.
The Court expressed concern that the FSSAI had not prescribed a definite timeline for moving from Phase I to Phase II.
It observed that, without a specific deadline, Phase II could take a backseat or be postponed indefinitely. Consumer acceptability and the need to give industry time for reformulation could not, by themselves, justify uncertainty regarding implementation.
The Bench directed the authority to specify a reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined transition period between the two phases.
The Court also asked the FSSAI to consider an alternative phased model suggested by the petitioner. Under this model, the regime could initially apply at higher nutrient thresholds, which could then be progressively reduced within a defined period.
Referring to the Israeli model cited by the petitioner, the Court observed that there appeared, prima facie, to be some logic in gradually moving from higher thresholds to scientifically appropriate lower thresholds.
The FSSAI had proposed adopting the nutrient thresholds prescribed under the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition’s Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024.
For every 100 millilitres of liquid food, the Guidelines prescribe threshold values of 70 kilocalories, 175 milligrams of salt, two grams of added sugar and 1.5 grams of added fat. For every 100 grams of solid food, the corresponding thresholds are 250 kilocalories, 625 milligrams of salt, three grams of added sugar and 4.2 grams of added fat.
The Court noted that the Guidelines separately classify foods according to their level of processing and calorific value. They divide foods into minimally processed products without additives, moderately processed products without additives, and excessively processed products containing additives.
Within these categories, foods are further divided according to calorific value. Foods in categories 2 and 3 are treated as HFSS products.
The Court observed that the precise distinction between categories 2 and 3 in terms of added fat, added sugar and salt was not clear. It therefore asked whether the FSSAI intended to preserve this distinction while determining warning-label thresholds.
The Bench suggested that category 3 foods could potentially be covered in Phase I and category 2 foods in Phase II. This could allow nutrient thresholds to be progressively reduced while avoiding a situation in which nearly every packaged food carried the same warning.
If warning labels appeared on all products, the Court cautioned, consumers could become confused and might be unable to distinguish products containing relatively more harmful nutrient levels from those containing comparatively lower levels.
The Court also asked whether the distinction between moderately processed foods without additives and ultra-processed foods containing additives should be reflected through different threshold levels.
The Court sought details about the “specified sweetened beverages” proposed to be included in Phase I.
It directed the FSSAI to explain how such beverages would be identified and whether different nutrient thresholds would apply to them.
The Bench noted that the proposal did not clearly identify the kinds of sweetened beverages intended to be immediately covered or the nutrient levels that would trigger the warning.
The FSSAI proposed that the warning text be printed one point larger than the nutritional information appearing on the back of the package.
The Court referred to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, which require label contents to be clear, unambiguous, prominent, conspicuous, indelible and readily legible under normal conditions of purchase and use.
The petitioner argued that a font merely one point larger than the nutritional-information text would be too small to function as a meaningful warning.
The Court asked the FSSAI’s expert committee to consider whether the warning label should instead be proportionate to the overall size of the package. It noted the petitioner’s submission that some countries require warning labels to occupy approximately 15% to 20% of the principal display area.
The authority was directed to clarify the dimensions of the proposed hexagon, whether its size would be standardised or linked to the package area, whether the font size would be proportionate to the hexagon, and where the warning would be placed on the package.
The Court described sugar, salt and fat as nutrients that health advisers and critics of junk food collectively call the “unholy trinity”.
It observed that the health concern did not necessarily arise only from added sugar and added fat. The total quantity of these nutrients available in a food product might also need to be taken into account.
The petitioner pointed out that a 2021 stakeholder consultation had reached a consensus in favour of displaying total sugar and saturated fat for front-of-package labels.
The Court asked the FSSAI to explain whether it had departed from that earlier consensus by proposing thresholds based on added sugar and added fat. If its position had changed, the authority was asked to explain how the underlying public-health concerns would be addressed.
The Bench further directed the FSSAI to clarify how trans-fat content would be treated while calculating fat levels for the warning-label regime.
The Court raised concerns about the FSSAI’s proposal to use warning labels containing only words such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT”.
It observed that a word-heavy label presumed a certain level of literacy, comprehension and reading ability across different states, languages, regions and age groups.
An inclusive warning system should ideally combine words with pictorial representations of each nutrient of concern, the Court said. Such a design would make the information accessible to consumers with different literacy levels and reading capabilities.
The Bench also noted that food purchases were increasingly moving online and said that this change in consumer behaviour should be considered while designing the warning system.
The Court accordingly asked the FSSAI to revisit its present conception of the label and explain how it proposed to serve India’s diverse consuming population without separate pictorial representations.
The FSSAI proposed using one composite hexagonal label when a product contained excessive quantities of two or more nutrients.
The Court asked why the authority had moved away from separate labels for each nutrient.
For instance, a product high in both sugar and fat could carry one hexagon stating “HIGH SUGAR” and another stating “HIGH FAT”, rather than placing both warnings inside a single hexagon.
The petitioner argued that separate warning symbols would allow consumers to understand the nature and number of nutritional risks even from a distance.
The Court observed that separate hexagons would become even more relevant if the FSSAI introduced individual pictorial symbols for sugar, salt and fat.
The Court also asked the FSSAI to reconsider the choice of red for the proposed warning label.
It noted the concern that Indian consumers had become accustomed to associating green symbols with vegetarian products and red with non-vegetarian products. A red warning label could therefore create confusion regarding the product’s ingredients.
The authority was directed to consider whether a different colour would be more appropriate.
The Bench flagged the possibility that manufacturers, while reducing sugar, salt and fat to avoid warning labels, might increase the use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives.
Sugar, salt and fat perform several functions in packaged food, including enhancing flavour and texture, improving shelf life and microbiological safety, and assisting in processing stability.
The Court observed that a warning system targeting these nutrients could unintentionally encourage manufacturers to replace them with other chemicals.
It asked the FSSAI to keep this risk in mind while finalising nutrient thresholds and to consider corresponding regulations governing the use of such additives.
The All India Food Processors Association, an intervenor in the case, proposed adopting a nutrient reference value-based, per-serving system.
The Court accepted that such a model was scientifically sound and could provide useful information to consumers. It nevertheless observed that numerical data might not send a sufficiently clear warning about harmful nutrient content and could ultimately be ignored.
While per-serving data could be displayed, the Court indicated that a warning-style FoPL based on the total content of nutrients of concern would be more appropriate.
The petitioner submitted that the final FoPL regime should be mandatory and uniformly enforceable across all covered food products. Implementation should not be left to the discretion of individual food businesses.
The Court noted that the 2022 draft regulations had proposed voluntary compliance for 48 months after notification, followed by mandatory implementation.
It directed the FSSAI to specifically respond to the suggestion that the final warning-label regime should be mandatory from the date it is notified. If a voluntary compliance period was still contemplated, the authority must state what would constitute a reasonable transition period.
The Supreme Court also sought the Union Government’s response on the steps proposed to improve nutritional literacy among schoolchildren.
The Bench referred to the acute risk of children developing unhealthy eating habits because of their exposure to packaged snacks, particularly around schools.
It asked the government to explain how schools could use curricula, workshops and other initiatives to teach children how to understand nutritional information and front-of-package warning labels.
The Court said action was necessary because children remained particularly vulnerable to impulsive or uninformed dietary decisions.
The Court directed the FSSAI and the Union Government to respond to 13 issues, including the timeline for implementation, the scientific basis of the two-phase approach, thresholds for sweetened beverages, classification of processed and ultra-processed foods, treatment of total sugar, saturated fat and trans fat, dimensions and placement of the warning labels, use of pictorial symbols, separate nutrient-specific hexagons, regulation of artificial additives, the duration of any voluntary compliance period and nutritional education in schools.
The FSSAI must file its response by affidavit within 10 days and share it with the petitioner, who may submit a reply before the next hearing.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
