Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 10 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner – 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY; respondents – Union of India & anr.; intervenor – All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA); regulator – Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
  • Background: On 13 August 2026 the Court highlighted the urgent need for Front‑of‑Package Labelling (FoPL) on packaged foods to curb obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, especially among children. The Court directed the Union and FSSAI to take prompt action and report back within two weeks.
  • Petitioner’s Earlier Observations (Paras 15‑22 of the 13 Aug order): urged the Union to decide visual appearance of FoPL, cited Article 21 & 47 of the Constitution, noted that FoPL was already suggested in the Economic Survey, gave the Union two weeks to place a final decision on record, and warned that failure would lead to further directions.
  • FSSAI Affidavit (dated 28 August 2026):
  • Proposed a red‑coloured hexagonal warning label for products high in any two or more of added saturated fat, added sugar, and salt, based on thresholds from the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024 (ICMR‑NIN).
  • Labels to read “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT”, or “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE” as applicable.
  • Font size to be one point larger than that used for the nutrition information table on the back.
  • Exemptions: single‑ingredient foods and foods inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt (ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery, honey).
  • Phased implementation: Phase I – products high in two or more nutrients (or specified sweetened beverages); Phase II – products high in any one nutrient.
  • Commitment to amend regulations accordingly.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • Acknowledged progress but identified several ambiguities needing clarification.
  • Phased Strategy Issues: basis for separating phases, lack of a fixed timeline, and suggestion to consider an alternate approach (e.g., Israeli model) where higher‑threshold foods are targeted first.
  • Threshold Definitions: discrepancy between 2024 Dietary Guidelines (HFSS defined as foods prepared with excessive oils/fats or added sugar/salt) and 2022 Draft Regulations (HFSS defined as processed foods with high saturated fat, total sugar or sodium). Need for consensus on definition.
  • Food‑Category Differentiation: Table 15.2 classifies solids into groups A, B, C and sub‑categories 1‑3 based on processing level and caloric value. Court asked whether FSSAI will differentiate between categories 2 and 3 in FoPL, and whether sub‑categories B2/C2 vs B3/C3 will have distinct thresholds.
  • Specific Sweetened Beverages: request for clarification on which beverages fall under Phase I and their thresholds.
  • Font Size & Logo Dimensions: current proposal of “one point larger” may be too small; need details on hexagon size, proportion to package area, and whether a standardized dimension will be fixed (international practice 15‑20 % of principal display panel).
  • Colour Choice: red hexagon may be confused with the non‑veg symbol; court asked if colour should be revisited.
  • Nutrient Basis: petitioner argues for “total sugar” and “saturated fat” (as per stakeholder meeting on 29 Oct 2021) rather than “added” values; also seeks clarification on inclusion of trans‑fat.
  • Label Design: petitioner's preference for separate hexagons for each nutrient versus the current composite hexagon; also for pictorial representation to aid low‑literacy consumers.
  • Potential Increase in Additives: warning that reducing sugar/fat/salt may lead manufacturers to use more preservatives, emulsifiers, etc.; request for regulatory safeguards.
  • Reference‑Value per Serving: AIFPA suggested a nutrient‑reference‑value approach; court noted that while scientifically sound, it may not provide a clear “red‑signal” to consumers.
  • Mandatory vs Voluntary Compliance: Draft 2022 Regulations envisaged 48 months voluntary period before mandatory enforcement; petitioner asks for immediate mandatory status or a reasonable transition period.
  • Nutritional Literacy in Schools: UNICEF 2025 data shows overweight children rose from 2 % to 10 % (2000‑2022); 80 % of food around schools is packaged snacks. Court seeks Union’s plan for curriculum, workshops, etc., to improve nutritional literacy.

Final Outcome

  • The Court orders the FSSAI to file an affidavit answering the 13 detailed questions listed in paragraph 53 (covering thresholds, processing categories, sweetened beverages, colour, dimensions, font size, mandatory compliance period, school nutrition literacy, etc.) within 10 days of this order.
  • The affidavit must be shared with the petitioner, who may file a response before the next hearing.
  • The matter is listed for further hearing on 28 September 2026.

Topics: Front‑of‑Package Labelling, Food Safety Regulation