Supreme Court slams FSSAI, orders action on front-of-pack warning labels

By A Representative 

In a landmark hearing held on 13 August 2026, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for failing to implement its 10 February 2026 direction on front-of-pack warning labels for junk food.

A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala told FSSAI, "We do not suggest, we direct," making clear that the Court's earlier order was binding, not a mere suggestion. The Court asked the government counsel, "Do you not want people to be healthy?" and rejected FSSAI's argument that warning labels would unfairly target traditional Indian foods such as namkeen and eggs. The bench further asked, "Should Indians always remain underdeveloped?", stressing that India must match and lead global standards on public health.

The Court also refused to hear industry counsel who sought to intervene, asking them, "Why are you so desperate?" and directing them instead to submit their representations to the government.

FSSAI's Proposal Rejected In Principle

The case stems from the Court's earlier order of 10 February 2026, in which it had expressed dissatisfaction with FSSAI's progress, noting that efforts so far had produced no "positive or good result." The Court had directed FSSAI to consider warning-based labels such as "High Sodium Level," "High Sugar Level," and "High Saturated Fat Level."

In a compliance affidavit dated 3 August 2026, FSSAI instead proposed showing daily recommended limits for added sugar (25g), saturated fat (10g), and salt (5g) in a tabular format alongside serving size information.

The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, opposed this, arguing that numerical disclosure is fundamentally different from an interpretive warning label, since it requires consumers to read figures, compare them to daily limits, and calculate results before understanding whether a product is unhealthy. This, the petitioner said, defeats the purpose of front-of-pack labelling. The Court agreed, noting that such calculation-based systems are especially problematic given limited literacy and health literacy among large sections of India's population.

FSSAI Accused of Suppressing Its Own 2021 Record

The petitioner presented the Court with minutes from FSSAI's own Stakeholders' Meeting dated 30 June 2021 — a document FSSAI had not disclosed in its compliance affidavit. These minutes reportedly show that in 2021:

FSSAI rejected industry's proposal for per-serve measurement and adopted 100g/ml as the reference unit for "rational comparison."

FSSAI's scientific members rejected "Added Sugar" as a metric, favoring "Total Sugars," since energy calculations are based on total sugar and added sugar cannot be verified in a lab.

FSSAI's own minutes stated there were "no substantive studies to support effectiveness of monochrome GDA" — the format FSSAI is now proposing.

The petitioner argued this amounts to FSSAI reviving proposals its own 2021 process had rejected, without disclosure or explanation, and in line with industry's original demands.

Indian Evidence Cited in Support of Warning Labels

The petitioner referenced a six-state randomized field study of Indian consumers, which found:

60.8% correctly identified high-nutrient products using warning labels

55% did so using a numerical table

45% did so using a star rating system

This was cited as evidence that warning labels are most effective for Indian consumers, particularly those with limited literacy and numeracy.

The Court granted FSSAI two more weeks to reconsider the matter and reach an appropriate decision, reiterating that the goal is to let an ordinary consumer instantly recognize whether a product is high in nutrients of public-health concern. The Court noted that its 10 February 2026 order was intended to promote public awareness and protect public health, especially for children.

Reactions

Dr. Arun Gupta, Convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), said the Supreme Court had placed public health above profit and made clear that warning labels are not optional. He said the Court's refusal to hear industry counsel signals that public health regulation should not be shaped by commercial interests, and that industry should only be consulted on implementation, not policy design.

Dr. Sivaranjani Santosh, a Hyderabad-based pediatrician, said children and consumers deserve to be warned about high fat, sugar, and salt (HFSS) content, and that only consumers — not the food industry — should be treated as stakeholders in this decision.