Supreme Court gives Centre two weeks to decide on warning labels for high-sugar, salt foods

The Supreme Court on Aug 13 gave the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) two weeks to take a final decision on introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it could issue further directions if the government fails to act.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure over the delay and questioned the government's reluctance to move ahead with the proposed nutritional warnings. The court made it clear that the government could either take a decision on its own or face further judicial intervention.

The court's concern centred on the need for consumers, particularly children, to have clear information about the nutritional content of packaged foods before making purchasing decisions. During the hearing, the bench questioned why stronger warnings were being resisted when the issue concerned public health.

The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, raised concerns about applying strict nutritional standards to Indian food products.

He submitted that some traditional foods could attract red warning symbols because of their salt or fat content. He also argued that nutritional standards used internationally, particularly in developed countries, may not be directly applicable to Indian dietary patterns.

The submissions included examples such as ‘namkeen’ (savories). Chahar pointed out that the prescribed daily fat limit could be exceeded by consumption of two eggs, highlighting the difficulty of applying nutritional thresholds uniformly across different food categories.

The bench was not persuaded that such concerns should prevent consumers from receiving clearer information. It said front-of-pack warnings would help people understand the nutritional risks of products before buying them.

The court also rejected the argument that such labels could adversely affect manufacturers, stressing that the ultimate choice of whether to purchase a product would remain with consumers.

It said the issue before it was not about opposing any particular food product but about ensuring that consumers know what they are consuming.

During the proceedings, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a manufacturer, sought to make submissions on the issue. The bench questioned the intervention, saying the matter concerned public health and that manufacturers could not determine the approach to be adopted on the issue.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat raised submissions concerning the categorisation of food products and the disclosure of nutritional information.

The bench also referred to its earlier order of February 10, 2026, concerning front-of-pack warning labels. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel brought the court's attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, which the counsel said reflected a position contrary to the court's earlier observations.

The court also questioned the Centre's position that international standards could not easily be adopted in India. The bench said India should demonstrate that it was serious about protecting the health of its citizens, particularly children.

The proceedings come against the backdrop of a petition seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Such labels are intended to make potentially unhealthy nutritional content more visible to consumers at the point of purchase.

The issue has also been examined by Parliament's Committee on Subordinate Legislation, headed by Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha MP Milind Deora, which has advocated studying Singapore's Nutri-Grade system as a possible model for India.

Separately, the Union Health Ministry has proposed displaying "sugar and oil boards" in schools, offices and other public institutions as a behavioural measure aimed at encouraging healthier dietary choices and reducing excessive consumption of sugar and oil.

The Supreme Court has now given the Centre two weeks to place its final decision on record. The bench warned that if the government does not act, it could proceed to issue further directions.

“This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment,” the bench said.