The Supreme Court today(August 13) expressed strong displeasure at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for not acting as per the Court's earlier suggestion to mandate Front-of-Package Labels on packaged food products warning about high sugar, fat or sodium content.

Instead of acting as per the Court's suggestion, the FSSAI came with a proposal to mention the daily recommended levels of consumption of sugar, salt and fat in packages.

The Court also criticised the stand of the Union that international standards cannot be applied in India, and asked whether India should remain underdeveloped.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran remarked that the earlier February order was not merely a suggestion but a direction to the FSSAI. Justice Pardiwala questioned if FSSAI is bowing down to the manufacturing industry and stated that if they wouldn't do it, the Court will themselves pass an order. It has now granted two more weeks to the FSSAI to seriously reconsider its present proposal.

It may be recalled that on February 10, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the FSSAI in a public interest litigation seeking mandatory FOPL on packaged food products. The order was passed in a miscellaneous application filed in a writ petition by 3S and Our Health Society in which the bench had directed the FSSAI's Expert Committee to file necessary recommendations in this regard.

When the compliance affidavit was filed in February, the Court had observed that the exercise undertaken so far had not yielded any “positive or good result”. Illustrating that the proposed approach should be through warnings such as “High Sodium Level”, “High Sugar Level” and “High Saturated Fat Level”, it had directed FSSAI to revisit the issue.

In today's hearing, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar submitted the compliance affidavit of FSSAI, adopting a different approach from the interpretative warning label. It suggested displaying the daily recommended limits for added sugar, added saturated fat and salt in a pictorial format based on the 2024 ICMR–NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians.

To illustrate, the labelling would mention the suggested daily limits of sugar as 25 grams per day, saturated fat as 10 grams per day, and salt as 5 grams per day, to name a few.This was in variance with the Court's proposal, which was illustrated in the previous order asbelow:

FSSAI also referred to its stakeholder consultation of March 19, 2026, stating that a majority of industry organisations were opposed to the inclusion of “warning labels” and favoured an approach intended to enable informed consumer decisions “without creating fear amongst the consumers”.

Opposing the FSSAI's proposal, Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, for the petitioner, argued that mere disclosure of "numerical nutritional information" is fundamentally different from an interpretive warning label.

Dvivedi submitted that under the proposed system, a consumer would have to read the nutritional information, locate the relevant figures, compare them with the recommended daily limits and undertake calculations before determining whether the particular food product is high in sugar, salt or saturated fat. Such a system would defeat the very purpose of FOPL, which is to enable consumers to make an instant and informed choice at the point of purchase.

The petitioner further submitted that the requirement of calculation and interpretation becomes particularly problematic in the Indian context, where a significant section of the population has limited literacy and health literacy. A colour-coded and pictorial warning, on the other hand, can communicate the health risk immediately without requiring the consumer to perform mathematical calculations or possess specialised nutritional knowledge.

FSSAI's submission on international standards

ASG particularly emphasised that international standards that suggest interpretative warnings cannot simply be applied to the Indian context as dietary patterns differ. It was submitted that food consumed in Western countries is comparatively bland, whereas Indian food is traditionally more fried and spicy, and therefore standards relating to sugar, saturated fat and sodium adopted internationally cannot be applied mechanically to India.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh(for the manufacturing industry) supported the FSSAI's proposal.

However, the Court strongly responded to these contentions and stated that such an approach effectively suggested that Indians cannot have healthy food. Justice Pardiwala asked whether Indians should “always remain underdeveloped”.

The Court also questioned whether adequate concern was being shown for the health of Indian children.

Justice Pardiwala said: "In our country, how many children can afford dry fruits? And how many of them buy Kurkure? That's all the difference it makes!"

Observing that the matter can't be approached as merely a technical exercise in nutritional disclosure, the Court reiterated that the February 10 order should be followed in spirit, as it is aimed at protecting public health, with particular emphasis on the health of children.

Case Details: 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR|15 MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi and Ms. Priyanka Parmar

For the Respondents/FSSAI: Mr. Brijender Chahar, ASG