The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Union Government two weeks to place on record its final decision on introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure after counsel for the petitioner drew its attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, alleging that the position taken by the food regulator was contrary to the Court's earlier directions. The bench questioned Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Union Government, over the government's approach and said its earlier order was clear, alleging there was 'immense pressure' from corporate houses on the authorities. The Court concluded with a stern warning: 'This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment' and warned that 'If you can't do it, we will' while asking whether the government was unwilling to take necessary steps. The Court also questioned whether pressure from large corporate entities was influencing the government's position, stating 'The matter concerns the health of citizens - particularly growing children - and decisions regarding it should not be influenced by corporate pressure'.
During the hearing, the bench questioned Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar about the steps taken so far and whether the government was 'succumbing' to pressure from corporate houses. As reported by Bar and Bench, the court asked, 'Why are you not abiding by our order?' and emphasized that the warnings were intended to create greater awareness among consumers, particularly children, about what they were consuming. The judges stated that consumers already knew that packaged foods contained sugar, fat and carbohydrates, but clear warnings on the front of packages would allow them to make more informed choices before purchasing a product. The Supreme Court suggested the Standards Authority consider warning symbols for products high in sodium, sugar, or saturated fat, alongside a positive logo for healthier options, to build consumer awareness about food products' health impact. The Court observed that manufacturers may not favour warning labels if they affect their business, but ultimately the decision to purchase a product would remain with the consumer. Justice Pardiwala also drew attention to children's access to healthier foods, saying: 'In our country, how many children can afford dry fruits? And how many of them buy Kurkure? That's all the difference it makes!'
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed a new approach based on the 2024 ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians instead of front-of-pack warning labels. According to LiveLaw, the regulator's latest proposal differs from earlier interpretive warning labels and instead displays the recommended daily limits for added sugar (25 grams), added saturated fat (10 grams) and salt (5 grams) in pictorial form. The petitioner's counsel opposed this approach, arguing that simply providing numerical nutritional information would require consumers to locate figures, compare them with recommended daily limits and determine whether a product contained high levels of sugar, salt or saturated fat. Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi pointed to difficulties this could create for people with limited literacy and health literacy, stating that such calculations defeated the purpose of front-of-pack warnings, which are intended to allow consumers to make immediate choices. The Court rejected this approach, stating 'Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know' and emphasizing that 'Manufacturers do not play a decisive role in this matter'.
FSSAI referred to its stakeholder consultation held on March 19, 2026, where a majority of industry organisations opposed warning labels. According to LiveLaw, the industry favoured an approach intended to enable informed consumer decisions 'without creating fear amongst the consumers'. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing the manufacturing industry, supported FSSAI's proposal. The Centre argued that applying strict warning-label standards could result in several traditional Indian foods receiving red warning symbols because of their salt or fat content. ASG Brijender Chahar cited namkeen as an example and said even an egg could potentially attract a warning under certain proposed limits, submitting that 'Every food item will have a red label on it'. He argued that nutritional standards applicable in developed countries, where diets may contain less sugar and fat, could not necessarily be applied in the same manner to traditional Indian foods. The government counsel also submitted that around one-third of the revenue of MSMEs comes from traditional foods and suggested that imposing such warning labels could have a significant impact on the sector.
The Supreme Court strongly questioned the Centre's position that India could not necessarily follow food-labelling standards used in developed countries. As reported by LiveLaw, Justice Pardiwala asked 'Should India remain an underdeveloped country?' and emphasized that India should demonstrate that it was serious about protecting the health of its citizens, particularly children. The Court made it clear that its February 10 order was not merely a suggestion but a direction to FSSAI and reiterated that it was not targeting any particular product but wanted consumers to know what they were consuming when making purchasing decisions. The Court made it clear that it was not targeting any particular food product or manufacturer, stating that it only wanted consumers to know what they were consuming when making purchasing decisions. The matter concerns a petition filed by 3S and Our Health Society and the Court has granted the Centre and FSSAI two weeks to reconsider their approach, warning that if authorities fail to comply, 'a verdict will be pronounced next time'.
