Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Front-Of-Pack Warning Labels For Foods High In Sugar, Salt, Sodium And Fats

The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran heard detailed arguments on whether FOPL implementation should be mandatory or voluntary, the timeline for implementation, the consultation process and the nutritional criteria to be adopted.

The Court observed that the exercise was being undertaken “for the good of the nation, for the good of the citizens” and said that whatever order it passes would be binding on the authorities.

The Bench also said it expected the authorities to implement its directions “scrupulously” and in their “true spirit.”

Mandatory or voluntary implementation

A key issue before the Court was whether front-of-pack warning labels should be implemented voluntarily or made mandatory.

The Bench questioned the need for voluntary compliance, particularly in view of the health concerns involved. The Court also questioned the time sought by the authorities for implementation, observing: “Why do you want to waste so much of time when we are so much concerned about the health issue?”

The Bench indicated that the timelines proposed by both sides appeared unreasonable and said it would balance the competing positions while deciding the matter.

Consultation process and existing stock

The Court also examined whether the consultation process for FOPL implementation would have to begin afresh.

Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi submitted that the process had already been underway since the 2021 draft and argued that the existing process could continue in accordance with the directions issued by the Court.

The Bench also considered the issue of packaged food already manufactured and available in the market.

A suggestion was made that stickers carrying the required warning labels could be affixed to existing products so that the stock would not go to waste and implementation could begin.

The Court also questioned how such a requirement could operate in cases where products had already reached retailers.

‘Ultra-processed food’ definition

Another issue before the Court was the absence of a clear definition of “ultra-processed food.”

Counsel sought a direction to the authorities to formulate a definition while proceeding with the implementation of FOPL.

Added sugar vs total sugar

The Bench also considered arguments concerning the distinction between added sugar and total sugar.

The authorities submitted that certain foods, including milk, nuts and seeds, contain naturally occurring sugar and argued that consumers should be able to distinguish between naturally occurring and added sugar in packaged products. Counsel therefore submitted that added sugar should be the focus of the labelling requirement.

The Court said it would consider the issue while deciding the matter.

Per-serving criteria and international standards

The Bench also heard arguments on the proposed per-serving criteria and their conformity with international standards.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh referred to standards followed in jurisdictions including the United States, United Kingdom and Canada and submitted that the proposed Indian criteria were in conformity with international standards.

The Court, however, cautioned against relying solely on international standards, noting that other jurisdictions were themselves dealing with similar issues. The Bench considered examples involving small serving sizes, including a 5-gram pickle sachet, to examine how the proposed criteria would operate.

Counsel also pointed out that the issue of per-serving requirements had been considered during the proceedings and minutes in 2021.

After hearing all parties, the Court concluded the arguments and reserved judgment.

Previous Hearings

The Bench directed all parties to file their final written submissions, not exceeding three pages, within three days. “We have undertaken this endeavour for the good of the nation… We hope that what has been conveyed by us has been taken by the authority in its true spirit,” the Court said.

The Court thereafter directed the authorities to study the judgment and abide by its directions. Judgment was reserved.

Recently, the FSSAI had informed the Supreme Court that Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FoPL) for packaged food items will be rolled out in a single phase, marking a shift from its earlier approach that sought to introduce the labelling norms in two phases depending on the number of “nutrients of concern” in a product.

In an affidavit filed before the court, the FSSAI has clarified that it proposes to adopt a single-phase approach for the implementation of Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling. To finalise the draft regulations, it requires a four-month period, and there shall be a “voluntary implementation period of 365 days” by Food Business Operators (FBOs), it added.

“This time period has been provided in order to avoid any commercial hardships to the FBOs as they have pre-packaged material already printed in bulk,” the FSSAI said.

The FSSAI's response comes to the Supreme Court September 10 order which sought further information from the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on its proposal for implementing phased front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) to safeguard the collective health and well-being of people, especially growing children in India.

The Bench had asked the Union government to explain how schools plan to incorporate, through curriculum, initiatives and workshops, the manner in which information provided on packaged food items, including nutritional information and FoPL, should be interpreted. Court also sought details on other aspects of nutritional literacy, "in recognition of the vulnerable position that children are in vis-à-vis impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making".

The Supreme Court also raised key questions over the proposed introduction of front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt, sodium and fats, particularly concerning the threshold that would determine when an ingredient is considered “high”.

Court had earlier asked the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider introducing front-of-pack warning labels for products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. Justice Pardiwala questioned how the proposed warning system would operate and asked: “If a product is to carry a label saying high in sugar / high in salt / high in sodium, what is the threshold?”

About the PIL

In February, the Court had asked Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider introducing mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL) on packaged food products high in sugar, sodium and saturated fat observed that such regulatory measures are essential to safeguard citizens’ right to health.

In April last year, court had directed the Expert Committee constituted by the FSSAI to prepare its recommendation and submit a Report within 3 months. On 30th January 2026, a compliance affidavit affirmed by Dr. Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director, FSSAI was filed before the Supreme Court. FSSAI told the court by way of a compliance affidavit that it intends to conduct further research and undertake a systematic mapping of a representative sample of different varieties of packaged foods across both solid and liquid categories.

It further intends to conduct surveys among consumers to assess the extent of usage of label information; conduct periodic review of the FoPNL trends globally and ensure wider stakeholder consultation with the industry; small, medium and micro enterprises.

"Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result. The PIL was filed with a particular purpose. It raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country. Today, what has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also makes some sense and we want the authority to take this aspect into consideration. The suggestion is that on the wrapper/packet of any pre-packaged food product, there must be warning in the form of front of-package labelling", the bench had noted.

The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, has drawn attention of the Court on the alarming rise in the spread of diabetes and associated diseases in our country. "Diabetes has emerged as a silent epidemic in India, affecting millions of individuals and posing a significant burden on our healthcare system....Shockingly, 1 in 4 individuals in the country is grappling with diabetes, predominantly attributed to obesity", the PIL states.

On the increased consumption of junk foods, it has been submitted that pervasive marketing of these unhealthy products exacerbates the situation, leading to weight gain and elevated intake of sugars, salt, and saturated fat. Highlighting the potential benefits of implementing Front of Package Labelling (FOPL) with warning labels as proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the plea states, "Front of Package Labelling serves as a powerful tool in empowering consumers to make informed choices about their diet and reducing the adverse impact of commercial interests of big corporates. It enables citizens to easily identify and understand the nutritional content and harmful ingredients present in packaged food and beverages, thereby making healthier choices....".

It has been submitted that the implementation of FOPL with warning labels would not only help tackle the rise in cases of diabetes and associated diseases but also address other non-communicable diseases, including obesity, hypertension, and cardiovascular conditions.

Case Title: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Hearing Date: September 28, 2026