‘Don’t let us down’: SC reserves order on FSSAI labels on front of pack | Today’s news
The Supreme Court on Monday told the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement its final guidelines on front-of-pack warning labels in their “genuine spirit” and within the prescribed time frame and asked the regulator not to disappoint the court.
“The day the matter comes up for declaration of compliance, do not let us down. We expect the authority to comply with anything and everything in the larger interest of the nation,” the two-judge bench said while concluding a hearing on a petition seeking mandatory warning labels on packaged foods.
However, Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran reserved their order for the final directions.
The court heard arguments on several aspects of the proposed labeling framework, including added sugar, nutrient thresholds, voluntary compliance, management of existing stocks and the implementation schedule.
The apex court also took cognizance of an affidavit filed by the FSSAI, which sets out the regulator’s latest stand on the proposed warning label regime.
FSSAI has proposed to abandon its earlier two-phase implementation approach and adopt a single-phase system for front-of-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 exceeds a prescribed threshold.
The regulator proposed a red hexagon placed on a white square background at the top left of the package to give consumers a clear visual indication when a packaged food product exceeds the prescribed limits for the relevant nutrients.
Read also | Industry must follow consumers, says FSSAI chief to push for food safety
The watchdog committee previously asked the regulator to clarify 13 issues related to the proposed warning system, including a timeline for implementation, basis for a two-phase approach, treatment of sweetened beverages, levels of processing, sugar and fat calculations, warning color and design, pictorial representation, additives, voluntary compliance and nutritional literacy.
Health warning
The non-profit organization 3S and Our Health Society filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in August 2024 to get stronger front-of-pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.
FSSAI has asked for around 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 required by FSSAI to implement the proposed framework. The regulator has indicated that it will need time to draft and finalize regulations, including consultation with stakeholders, before implementation.
The petitioner also raised concerns about voluntary compliance and the treatment of products already manufactured and delivered to retailers. The court sought to clarify how the transition will work once the final framework goes into effect.
Another key issue was the handling of added sugar. The petitioner questioned FSSAI’s decision to focus on added sugar and pointed to an earlier position taken during the regulatory process.
But the regulator insisted 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.
Consumer packaging companies will be watching the outcome closely, as the final framework could determine when manufacturers need to adjust their packaging, how existing inventory is managed and what steps will be required across their product portfolios.
Read also | How the Supreme Court’s 13 questions to FSSAI could shape the labels on the front of food packages
Legal disputes
Many companies have already challenged FSSAI’s actions over misleading labels and packaging.
Before the Bombay High Court, the regulator argued that Old Monk could not be sold simply as “rum” because of its composition and use of rum flavoring, and sought changes to its labelling. Its manufacturer submitted revised labels to the court.
Dabur has challenged FSSAI’s “100%” claims for products, including honey, ghee and edible oils, in the Delhi High Court.
On September 1, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Center and FSSAI on a petition by AWL Agri Business Ltd challenging the regulator’s action banning the production and sale of its Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil due to alleged misleading statements and label claims.
In August 2026, ITC Ltd approached the Delhi High Court challenging FSSAI’s claim over its use of “100%” on Aashirvaad MP Chakki Atta. The regulator ordered the removal of the complaint and subsequently issued an improvement notice with a possible license action. Delhi HC granted interim protection against cancellation/suspension of ITC’s license.
Read also | Industry must follow consumers, says FSSAI food safety chief push
