New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday came down heavily on the Centre, particularly the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)—the country’s food regulator—for ignoring its earlier direction to implement ‘Front-of-Pack Warning Labels’ system on processed food packages, especially interpretive labels that clearly indicate the amount of sugar, salt or saturated fat.
Sensing the government’s reluctance to implement its February 2026 direction, a bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala criticised the Centre for succumbing to industry pressure and not showing its concern for citizens’ health, particularly of growing children.
The bench frowned upon the Central government counsel’s reasoning for not being able to abide by the court’s order.
The government lawyer argued if the interpretive label system is followed, all traditional Indian food products would be labelled as unhealthy. “Namkeen and even eggs would have red symbol, a sign of unhealthy product,” the counsel told the bench. The lawyer contended it was not possible to copy the system that is followed internationally because the food products consumed in those jurisdictions were bland, contained hardly any sugar and less fat.
This argument did not convince the bench, which retorted: “We know the pressure on you. Will you do it on your own or shall we pass an order. You have to do what the court has asked you to do. If you can’t do it… we will pass the order.”
The court asked the counsel if the government did not want its people to be healthy. Front-facing intrepretive labels were to build awareness about a food product’s impact on the health, it said. “Even without red label everybody knows. This will create public awareness. You should be concerned about the health of young children. They are addicted. Manufacturers may not like this as it affects their business. But why are you (government) reluctant to do this? Leave it to the consumer’s discretion,” the bench remarked.
The government counsel shared the Centre’s apprehension. He said one-third of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are based on traditional food, and the label system suggested will severely impact this industry.
However, the bench remained firm and gave a last opportunity to the Centre. At this, the counsel for the petitioner, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, brought to the court’s notice minutes of an FSSAI meeting of June 2021. Dvivedi said the minutes show that FSSAI has taken a U-turn on the issue by not supporting the interpretive label system.
Giving the Centre a final opportunity to take a decision, the bench said it wants the government to respond within two weeks. “We have made ourselves abundantly clear that we are concerned with the health of the citizens more particularly growing children. We still impress upon Union of India to seriously consider the suggestion and take appropriate action,” the court said.
The court refused to hear the counsel representing the industry and asked him to submit a representation to the Centre. “Why are you so desperate?” the bench asked the counsel when he urged the court to hear him.
The court then also noted that it did not “approve the stance of the Centre that it’s not possible to match international standards”.
“Should India remain an underdeveloped country? That’s a suggestion we are putting forward. The world should know India is concerned about the health of its citizens, more particularly children,” it said.
The bench’s critical remarks came as it was perusing FSSAI’s affidavit, filed a week back, indicating it was shifting away from interpretive front-of-pack warning labels. India’s food safety regulator has proposed a nutrition table for packaged foods.
Unlike interpretive warning labels, which immediately indicate when a product is high in sugar, salt or fat, the proposed format simply presents the numbers, leaving consumers to compare them with the recommended daily limits. The affidavit proposed displaying the government’s recommended daily limits for added sugar, saturated fat and salt alongside the nutrient content of a product per 100 g and its serving size, instead of using warning symbols to identify foods high in these additives.
The affidavit was filed in response to a public interest litigation by Kerala-based non-profit organisation 3S And Our Health Society, which has sought mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS).
In February this year, the Supreme Court directed FSSAI to revert within four weeks on a front-of-pack labelling framework for packaged foods. The bench suggested such labelling could include warning symbols for products high in sodium, sugar or saturated fat, alongside a positive logo for healthier products, and asked the authority to take this into consideration.
After reviewing FSSAI’s earlier compliance affidavit, the bench said it was “not satisfied” and observed, prima facie, that the exercise undertaken so far had “not yielded any positive or good result”.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)