The Supreme Court on Monday told the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement its final directions on front-of-the-pack warning labels in their “true spirit” and within the prescribed timeline, asking the regulator not to disappoint the court.
“On the day when the matter comes up for reporting compliance, do not disappoint us. We expect the authority to comply [with] each and everything in the larger interest of the nation,” the two-judge bench said while concluding the hearing on a petition seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged food products.
However, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran reserved its order for final directions.
The court heard arguments on several aspects of the proposed labelling framework, including added sugar, nutrient thresholds, voluntary compliance, treatment of existing stocks and the timeline for implementation.
The top court also took on record an affidavit filed by the FSSAI setting out the regulator’s latest position on the proposed warning-label regime.
The FSSAI has proposed moving away from its earlier two-phase implementation approach and adopting a single-phase system for front-of-the-pack warning labels. Under the proposed framework, a packaged food product could be required to carry a warning if even one of the specified nutrients crosses the prescribed threshold.
The regulator has proposed a red hexagon placed on a white square background at the top-left of the package, intended to provide consumers with a prominent visual indication when a packaged food product exceeds the prescribed limits for nutrients of concern.
The SC had earlier asked the regulator to clarify 13 issues relating to the proposed warning system, including the timeline for implementation, the basis for the two-phase approach, treatment of sweetened beverages, processing levels, sugar and fat calculations, the colour and design of warnings, pictorial representations, additives, voluntary compliance and nutrition literacy.
Health warning
Non-profit 3S and Our Health Society filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking stronger front-of-the-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat in August 2024.
The FSSAI sought about four months to finalize the regulations, followed by a proposed 365-day voluntary compliance period for food businesses.
During Monday’s hearing, the court questioned the time being sought by the FSSAI to implement the proposed framework. The regulator has indicated that it would need time to draft and finalize the regulations, including stakeholder consultation, before implementation.
The petitioner also raised concerns over voluntary compliance and the treatment of products already manufactured and supplied to retailers. The court sought clarity on how the transition would work once the final framework comes into force.
Another key issue was the treatment of added sugar. The petitioner questioned the FSSAI’s decision to focus on added sugar, pointing to an earlier position taken during the regulatory process.
The regulator, however, maintained that the distinction between naturally occurring sugar and sugar added during processing is important because consumers should know when sugar has been added to a product.
Packaged consumer goods companies will closely watch the outcome because the final framework could determine when manufacturers must alter packaging, how existing stock is treated, and what compliance steps will be required across their product portfolios.
Legal disputes
Many companies have already challenged the FSSAI’s actions over misleading labels and packaging.
Before the Bombay high court, the regulator has argued that Old Monk cannot be sold simply as “rum” because of its composition and use of rum flavouring, and has sought changes to its labelling. Its maker has submitted revised labels to the court.
Dabur has challenged the FSSAI action over “100%” claims on products, including honey, ghee, and edible oils, before the Delhi high court.
On 1 September, the Delhi high court sought responses from the Centre and the FSSAI on an AWL Agri Business Ltd petition challenging the regulator’s action prohibiting the manufacture and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil over alleged misleading label declarations and claims.
In August 2026, ITC Ltd approached the Delhi high court challenging the FSSAI action over its use of “100%” on Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta. The regulator had directed the removal of the claim and subsequently issued an improvement notice, with possible licence action. The Delhi HC granted interim protection against cancellation/suspension of ITC’s licence.
Leave a Reply