13 Questions for FSSAI: Supreme Court Scrutinises the Proposed Front-of-Pack Warning Labels on Packaged Food

Case at a glance: Examining FSSAI's proposal for front-of-package warning labels on foods high in fat, sugar or salt, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the progress made but found many implementation details unclear. It directed FSSAI to file an affidavit within ten days answering thirteen specific questions, from the two-phase rollout and nutrient thresholds to label size, pictograms and whether compliance will be mandatory.

In an earlier order of 13 August 2026, the Court urged prompt action on front-of-package labelling, linking obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension to foods high in fat, sugar or salt and ultra-processed foods, and asked the Union to decide on the design and timeline. FSSAI's affidavit of 28 August 2026 proposed a red hexagonal warning, with words such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGH SUGAR”, for products high in two or more nutrients, based on thresholds in the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, to be rolled out in two phases.

The petitioner's reply of 3 September 2026 argued that the “two or more” trigger lacked scientific basis and narrowed the first phase. An industry body, the All India Food Processors Association, also intervened.

The Key Question Before the Court

Is FSSAI's proposed front-of-package labelling regime clear and complete enough on phasing, thresholds, design and enforcement?

The Court's Concerns, Point by Point

The Court asked FSSAI to justify splitting Phase I (two or more nutrients, plus sweetened beverages) from Phase II (any one nutrient), and observed that “the absence of a fixed timeline separating the two-phases, by itself, raises some concerns”. It noted confusion between the HFSS definitions in the 2024 Guidelines and the 2022 draft labelling amendment, and asked why the proposal uses ‘added’ sugar and fat when the 2021 stakeholder consensus favoured total sugar and saturated fat.

On design, the Court found the hexagon's dimensions and placement rules missing, asked whether the label should be sized relative to the pack, and observed that a word-only label assumes a level of literacy many consumers may not have, favouring words combined with pictograms. It also raised the choice of a single composite hexagon, the colour red, the risk of manufacturers substituting additives, the industry's per-serving proposal, whether compliance would be mandatory or voluntary, and how schools will teach children to read labels.

What the Court Actually Held

• FSSAI must file an affidavit answering thirteen listed questions within ten days.
• The petitioner may respond to that affidavit before the next hearing.
• The Union must explain how nutritional literacy will be taught in schools.
• The matter was listed on 28 September 2026.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It signals close judicial oversight of India's front-of-pack labelling policy under Article 21.
• It identifies concrete gaps that any final regulation will need to address.
• It puts children's exposure to packaged foods at the centre of the debate.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Food Businesses

• Track the thresholds, design and timeline FSSAI ultimately adopts.
• Note the Court's preference for total-content and pictorial warnings.

For Public-Health Litigants

• Ground submissions in the Dietary Guidelines and the 2021 consensus minutes.
• Press for fixed timelines between phases.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It asked FSSAI to state whether compliance will be mandatory from the outset or after a voluntary period.

A red hexagonal warning with words like ‘HIGH SUGAR’ for products high in two or more of the specified nutrients, introduced in two phases.

No. The order deals with the regulatory proposal, the 2020 Labelling Regulations, the 2024 Dietary Guidelines and policy material.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →