Case at a glance: A Division Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed review petitions by FSSAI and industry bodies against its 6 February 2026 direction that packaged drinking water, and sugar and salt in plastic packaging, carry a warning that they may contain micro or nano plastics. The Court treated the label as a proportionate disclosure measure under the precautionary principle in Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
The matter began as a 2019 writ petition and was kept alive as a continuing mandamus. On 6 February 2026 the Bench directed that PET bottled drinking water, and sugar and salt in plastic packaging, must carry a label in bold red, minimum font size 10, reading “This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics”, with FSSAI to notify the requirement. Reports say the Court looked at analyses of bottled water from several states and findings of elevated microplastics in plastic-packed sugar and salt.
FSSAI, the Plastic Packaging Manufacturers' Association and packaged-water makers sought review or recall of that order. They argued there was no conclusive evidence of harm, that a label could cause public panic, that plastics may come from source water, and that no developed nation mandates such a label.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a court mandate a precautionary microplastics label under Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 when the science on harm is not conclusive, and was there an error apparent on the face of the record to justify review?
Why Disclosure Does Not Wait for Proof of Harm
As reported, the Court held that labelling is about disclosure of truth and that if something is present inside the product, it should be disclosed. Section 18 speaks of “potential” risks and “reasonable grounds to suspect”, so proof of actual harm is not required, and provisional risk-management measures are allowed despite scientific uncertainty.
The Court stressed that it had not declared the products unsafe; it had only required disclosure, which it treated as a proportionate, minimal intervention. All review petitions were dismissed. The writ remains pending as a continuing mandamus, so the Court's supervision and further studies continue.
What the Court Actually Held
- The review and recall petitions were dismissed and the labelling direction stands.
- Section 18 FSS Act permits precautionary measures where there are reasonable grounds to suspect risk, even without conclusive scientific proof.
- The label is a disclosure measure and does not declare the product unsafe.
- Industry arguments about lack of conclusive harm, public panic and foreign practice were rejected.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a strong judicial application of the precautionary principle and the consumer's right to know in food regulation.
- It puts pressure on FSSAI to notify labelling norms and on manufacturers to prepare for compliance.
- It shows a High Court using a continuing mandamus to supervise regulatory action over several years.
- It will be cited by consumer and public-interest advocates seeking disclosure-based remedies in other product categories.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Regulatory and Consumer Counsel
- Frame disclosure remedies under Section 18 as precautionary and proportionate rather than as findings of harm.
- Use continuing mandamus where long-term compliance monitoring is needed.
For Industry Counsel
- A review petition must show an error apparent on the face of the record; re-arguing the merits will not succeed.
- Engage with the notification process and any further studies the Court orders, since the writ continues.
Key Takeaways
- The Madras High Court dismissed the review petitions against its microplastics labelling direction.
- The Court relied on the precautionary approach in Section 18 of the FSS Act.
- The label discloses a potential presence and does not declare the products unsafe.
- The main writ continues as a continuing mandamus, and the compliance timeline should be checked.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. It said it had not declared the products unsafe and had only required a disclosure label.
Because Section 18 uses terms like potential risk and reasonable grounds to suspect, which allow precautionary, provisional measures despite scientific uncertainty.
The review was dismissed, but the underlying writ is still pending as a continuing mandamus. Whether any appeal or stay exists should be checked before publication.
Conclusion
The ruling treats consumer disclosure as a legitimate regulatory response to uncertain risk. A label is not a ban and not a finding, but it changes what manufacturers must tell the public.
Practical takeaway: For any precautionary-disclosure dispute, anchor the argument in the statute's own language on potential risk and in the proportionality of a label compared with a prohibition.