'You don't want people to remain healthy?': Supreme Court warns FSSAI over food warning labels

The Supreme Court on Thursday 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 food products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, ANI reported.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure over the government's reluctance to implement the proposed nutritional warnings and questioned whether pressure from food manufacturers was influencing the decision-making process.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation seeking warning labels on packaged foods to help consumers identify products containing high levels of sugar, salt and fat.

'Why are you not abiding by our order?'

During the hearing, the bench questioned Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, who was appearing for the Centre and FSSAI, about the steps taken so far.

The court also questioned whether the government was "succumbing" to pressure from corporate houses.

"Are you taking the court for a toss?" the bench asked, according to Bar and Bench, while stressing that the issue concerned public health and not the interests of the court.

The judges said the warnings were intended to create greater awareness among consumers, particularly children, about what they were consuming.

"Why? You don't want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?" the court asked.

The bench said 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.

Centre raises concerns over Indian foods

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 said Indian diets and food habits were different from those in developed countries and that international nutritional standards could not necessarily be applied directly to Indian foods.

He cited namkeen as an example and said even an egg could potentially attract a warning under certain proposed limits.

"Every food item will have a red label on it," Chahar argued, according to Bar and Bench.

The court, however, rejected the argument, saying the purpose of the warnings was to inform consumers rather than prevent them from buying a particular product.

"Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business. Even after these warnings, it's the discretion of the person who purchases it," the bench said.

'How many children buy Kurkure?'

The court also made clear that it was not targeting any particular food product or manufacturer.

"In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming," the court said.

The bench also rejected the argument that manufacturers' commercial interests should determine the government's approach to food labelling.

When a manufacturer sought to make submissions during the hearing, the court said the issue concerned public health and that manufacturers could not dictate policy on the matter.

Court questions India's approach to global standards

The Supreme Court also objected to the Centre's position that India could not necessarily follow food-labelling standards used in developed countries.

"We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says that it's not possible to match the international standards, more particularly developed countries. Should India remain as an undeveloped country?" the court asked.

It said India should demonstrate that it was serious about protecting the health of its citizens, particularly children.

"The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and more particularly children," the bench added.

'This is your last chance'

The court granted the Centre and FSSAI two weeks to place their final decision on record.

The bench made it clear that if the government did not act on its own, the court could issue further directions.

"This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement," the court warned.

The case follows earlier proceedings in which the Supreme Court had asked FSSAI to consider front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.

In April 2025, the court had directed an expert committee constituted by FSSAI to finalise its recommendations on the issue. FSSAI subsequently told the court that its proposed Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system had received more than 14,000 stakeholder comments but that there was no consensus on the format.