‘Why? You don't want people...to remain healthy?’: SC raps Centre over food warning labels

The Supreme Court on August 13 gave the Centre 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, warning that it would issue further directions if the government failed to act.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran questioned the Union government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the delay, stressing that the issue concerned public health, particularly that of children.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar told the court about the difficulties involved in applying stricter nutritional warnings to Indian food products. He pointed out that traditional foods such as namkeen could potentially carry red warning symbols because of their salt or fat content.

He also argued that international nutritional standards may not always suit Indian dietary habits, noting that even two eggs could exceed recommended daily fat limits.

The bench, however, said such concerns could not come in the way of giving consumers clear information about the food they buy.

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

The judges said consumers were already aware that packaged foods contain ingredients such as sugar, fat and carbohydrates, but front-of-pack warnings would make it easier for them to understand the nutritional risks before making a purchase.

The court also rejected concerns that warning labels could hurt manufacturers' businesses, pointing out that the final decision would remain with consumers.

During the hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a manufacturer, sought to make submissions. The bench said the matter was about public health and that manufacturers could not determine the policy on nutritional warnings.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat suggested that food products could be categorised differently and that their nutritional content should be prominently displayed.

The bench said it was not opposed to any particular food product but wanted consumers to be aware of what they were consuming.

"In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference," the court said.

The bench also referred to its February 10, 2026 order, in which it had previously dealt with the issue. The judges noted that the petitioner's counsel had brought to their attention the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, which appeared to take a position different from suggestions made by the court earlier.

The Union had argued that adopting international standards for packaging and nutritional warnings would be difficult.

The court rejected that reasoning and questioned whether India should use differences with developed countries as a justification for weaker public health safeguards.

"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 an undeveloped country?" the bench asked.

The judges 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 court said.

The bench gave the Union two weeks to place its final decision on record and made it clear that the Centre would have to decide whether to introduce the proposed warnings or face further directions from the court.

"This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement," the bench said.

The case stems from a petition in which the Supreme Court had earlier asked FSSAI to consider front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. Such labels are intended to help consumers identify potentially unhealthy nutritional content before purchasing a product.

The issue has also been examined by Parliament's Subordinate Legislation Committee, chaired by Shiv Sena Rajya Sabha MP Milind Deora. Deora has suggested examining Singapore's A-to-D 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 visual cues aimed at encouraging healthier dietary choices and reducing excessive consumption of sugar and oil.