The Supreme Court has reserved its order on mandatory front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and fat, while questioning the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over its proposed timeline for implementation. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran questioned why food businesses should be given 365 days of voluntary compliance after the regulations are notified, particularly since the issue has been under consideration for several years.
The Court also told FSSAI that its eventual directions must be implemented in their “true spirit” and warned the regulator, “Do not disappoint us” when compliance is reviewed. FSSAI, meanwhile, has proposed a single-phase warning system under which even one nutrient exceeding the prescribed threshold could trigger a red warning label on the front of a package. The matter follows a public interest litigation seeking clearer warnings to help consumers identify foods containing excessive levels of nutrients of concern.
Red Hexagons To Flag High Sugar, Salt And Fat
Under its latest proposal, FSSAI has moved away from an earlier two-phase approach and proposed a single-phase system for front-of-pack warnings. Packaged food products crossing the prescribed threshold for any one specified nutrient could carry a red hexagonal warning placed prominently on the front of the package. The proposed thresholds are based on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, prepared by the ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition.
FSSAI has also proposed a separate warning for products containing non-caloric sweeteners. The intention is to make important nutritional information visible before consumers have to study the detailed nutrition table printed on the back of a packet.
The proposal has also triggered debate over what should count towards the threshold. During the proceedings, counsel representing the petitioner raised concerns about FSSAI focusing on “added” sugar and fat rather than considering total quantities in a product. The petitioners have argued that the warnings should not be held up while discussions continue over the definition of ultra-processed foods, saying the two regulatory issues can be dealt with separately.
The Court has previously sought clarification on several aspects of the proposed system, including the size and design of the warning, nutrient thresholds, treatment of existing stocks, sweetened beverages, processing categories and nutrition literacy.
Why The Court Is Questioning The Delay
The dispute over front-of-pack labelling has been ongoing for years. FSSAI had earlier proposed the Indian Nutrition Rating system, which used star ratings to communicate the overall nutritional profile of packaged foods. The regulator subsequently moved towards a warning-based system focused on nutrients of concern. A public interest litigation filed by 3S and Our Health Society in 2024 sought stronger and clearer warnings for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.
FSSAI has sought around four months to finalise the regulations and conduct the required consultation process, followed by a 365-day voluntary compliance period for food businesses. The regulator’s position is that businesses need time to adjust packaging and comply with the new requirements. The Supreme Court, however, questioned why another lengthy consultation and transition period was necessary when discussions on front-of-pack labelling had already taken place. Justice Pardiwala asked, “Why voluntary compliance for a year?” The Bench also indicated that it would determine an appropriate timeline rather than simply accept the regulator’s proposed schedule.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court reserved its order and directed the parties to submit their final written arguments. It also made clear that once directions are issued, FSSAI will be expected to comply fully. The Bench said the entire exercise was being undertaken in the larger interest of citizens and told the regulator not to disappoint the Court when compliance is later reviewed.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Food labels are not merely about regulations or packaging design. They influence how easily families, particularly parents and children, can understand what they are consuming. Clear warnings can help consumers make informed choices, while scientifically sound thresholds and transparent consultation are equally important for ensuring that the system is fair and workable.
The Supreme Court’s intervention brings attention to the need to balance public-health priorities with a practical implementation process, without allowing prolonged uncertainty to dilute the purpose of the regulation. As the Court prepares to issue its directions, the larger question is how India can make nutritional information simpler, clearer and genuinely useful for everyone. Do you think front-of-pack warnings can help Indian consumers make healthier food choices, and what should an effective warning system look like?
Also Read: SC Questions Social Media Access For Minors, Asks Centre To Consider 18-Year Legal Safeguards
