The Supreme Court of India, comprising a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Union of India to address critical ambiguities in their proposed Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) regime for packaged foods. While acknowledging that progress had been made by the food safety regulator in submitting a proposal for a red hexagonal warning label, the Court issued a series of thirteen targeted queries concerning implementation timelines, nutrient thresholds, consumer comprehension, and packaging design, directing the FSSAI to file a clarificatory affidavit within ten days.
Background of the Case
The matter arose in a miscellaneous application filed in a writ petition by the petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, seeking the implementation of interpretive warning labels on packaged foods to alert consumers to products categorized as High in Fat, Sugar or Salt (HFSS) or Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF). In an earlier order dated August 13, 2026, the Court had highlighted the scientifically substantiated nexus between such foods and non-communicable diseases like obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disorders, noting that:
“The right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to health. When the Constitution guarantees this right, it casts a corresponding duty on the State to not only refrain from actions that impair the health but also to take affirmative steps to protect it. Furthermore, Article 47 of the Constitution casts a duty on the State to improve public health as its primary duty.”
The Court had further emphasized:
“The World should know that India is very much concerned about the overall health of its citizens, more particularly the growing children.”
In response to these directions, the FSSAI submitted an affidavit dated August 28, 2026, outlining a proposal to introduce a red-coloured hexagonal warning label on the front of packs to serve as a “simple, prominent and easily comprehensible warning to consumers regarding food products which are high in specified nutrients of concern”. Under the FSSAI proposal, the label would be introduced in two phases: Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients (added saturated fat, added sugar, and salt) based on thresholds under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research–National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN), as well as specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would subsequently extend the requirement to products exceeding the threshold for any single nutrient of concern.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner raised several objections to the FSSAI’s proposed framework in its reply dated September 3, 2026. It contended that requiring high levels of “two or more” nutrients as a triggering threshold in Phase I effectively redefines HFSS foods in a manner unsupported by science. The petitioner argued that excess sugar, excess salt, and excess saturated fat act through distinct physiological pathways and are independently harmful—excess sugar being linked to diabetes and metabolic disease, excess salt to hypertension, and excess saturated fat to cardiovascular disease and adverse cholesterol. The petitioner argued that this threshold would severely restrict the number of products covered in Phase I.
As an alternative, the petitioner submitted that “a phased approach may be justified as a means of progressively transitioning from relatively higher thresholds to scientifically appropriate thresholds”, citing the Israeli regulatory model where initial phases targeted higher thresholds before lowering them within a defined timeline. The petitioner also argued that thresholds must be based on “Total Sugar” and “Total Fat” rather than merely “Added Sugar” and “Added Fat”, referencing the consensus reached during a stakeholder consultation on October 29, 2021. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the proposed font size was too small, that distinct warning hexagons should be displayed for each nutrient of concern, and that compliance should be made mandatory immediately rather than left voluntary.
The All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA), participating as an intervenor, submitted that a Nutrient Reference Value-based, per-serving approach should be adopted, following models used in certain western jurisdictions.
The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union and the FSSAI, submitted during the hearing that the regulator remains open to receiving suggestions regarding the criteria separating the implementation phases.
The Court’s Analysis
Evaluating the regulatory proposals, the Court observed that while the FSSAI had made notable progress, several practical and foundational elements required clarification.
On the phased strategy, the Court pointed to an existing contradiction between the ICMR-NIN 2024 Guidelines, which define HFSS foods as “those foods that are prepared with excessive cooking oils/fats or more added sugar and salt”, and the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022, which define them as a “processed food product which has high levels of saturated fat or total sugar or sodium”. The Court stated that this confusion between the conjunctive “and” and disjunctive “or” must be resolved as a matter of priority. The Bench also noted that the absence of a fixed transitionary timeline between Phase I and Phase II was concerning, observing that industry reformulation and consumer acceptability alone cannot justify open-ended uncertainty.
Regarding the ICMR-NIN 2024 Guidelines, the Court noted that Table 15.2 categorizes foods into Groups A, B, and C based on the degree of processing, and further sub-categorizes them into Categories 1, 2, and 3 based on calorific value. The Court observed that under this framework, while Categories 2 and 3 are identified as HFSS, the differentiation between them regarding the exact amounts of added fat, sugar, and salt remains unintelligible. The Court observed:
“One way in which such differentiation could be accounted for is through adopting the alternate mode of the phased approach as indicated by the petitioner and as adopted in Israel. To be more specific, food category 3 could be targeted in Phase I. Thereafter, food category 2 could be targeted in Phase II.”
The Court cautioned that if thresholds simply follow Table 15.1, most packaged foods might carry warnings, which could leave consumers confused and deny them a healthier choice. The Bench also stressed that the nutritional distinction between Group B (moderately processed) and Group C (ultra-processed) foods should be factored into the regulatory design.
Examining the nutrients of concern—referred to by health advisors as the “Unholy Trinity”—the Court asked the FSSAI to explain why its proposal shifted from the October 2021 stakeholder consensus supporting “Total Sugar” and “Saturated Fat” to “Added Sugar” and “Added Fat”, and asked how trans-fats would be regulated.
Addressing the physical presentation of the label, the Court noted that the FSSAI’s proposal was silent on the actual dimensions and placement of the hexagon. It observed that the proposed font size—one point larger than the nutritional information table on the back of the pack under the 2020 Regulations—could prove inadequate without proportional sizing standards. The Court raised concerns regarding the proposed red colour of the hexagon, noting that Indian consumers are long habituated to associating red labels with non-vegetarian ingredients.
The Bench also critiqued the purely text-based design of the label, observing:
“This word heavy FoPL presupposes a certain level of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability across all States/regions, vernaculars, age groups, literacy levels, etc., of the consuming population. Ideally, an all-inclusive FoPL which effectively caters to the diverse population of this country should incorporate a combination of words along with pictorial representations of the individual nutrients-of-concern.”
Turning to the intervenor’s suggestion of a per-serving data model, the Court rejected it as an effective warning mechanism, observing that:
“Though the data-based information would caution and provide necessary information to the consumer, it cannot raise a red signal insofar as the harmful contents is concerned. Often, it may turn out to be a red herring, likely to be ignored, rather than be noticed.”
The Court also directed the FSSAI to consider the risk that targeting fat, sugar, and salt might inadvertently cause manufacturers to increase the use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers, and chemical additives to maintain taste, texture, and shelf life.
Finally, citing UNICEF’s Child Nutrition Report 2025 on the rise of overweight school-age children, the Court emphasized the vulnerability of children to packaged snacks and called on the Union of India to formulate school-level educational initiatives and curricula on nutritional literacy.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court formulated thirteen specific queries for the Union of India and the FSSAI covering:
- The fixed timeline for implementing the two proposed phases;
- The scientific basis for requiring “two or more” nutrients of concern in Phase I versus “any one” in Phase II;
- The identification and nutrient thresholds for “specified sweetened beverages” under Phase I;
- Accounting for differences between food categories 2 and 3 in the FoPL;
- Accounting for differences between moderately processed (Group B) and ultra-processed (Group C) foods;
- Calculating thresholds using “Total Sugar” and “Saturated Fat”, and the accounting of trans-fats;
- Reconsidering the red colour of the label to prevent confusion with non-vegetarian dietary indicators;
- Clarifying the dimensions, proportions, font size, and placement of the hexagonal label;
- Providing pictorial representations alongside text to ensure accessibility across diverse literacy levels;
- The rationale behind using a single combined hexagon rather than individual warning hexagons for each nutrient;
- Measures to regulate potential increases in artificial preservatives and additives resulting from product reformulation;
- Whether a voluntary compliance window is envisaged once regulations are notified, and its duration; and
- Educational steps and curriculum changes planned by the Union to improve nutritional literacy in schools.
The Court directed the FSSAI to file its affidavit answering these questions within ten days, with a copy supplied to the petitioner for a response prior to the next hearing. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 28, 2026.
Case Title: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 Of 2025 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 Of 2024
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date: 10th September, 2026
