Supreme Court Pushes FSSAI to Finalise Front-of-Pack Food Warnings; Questions Red Hexagons, Nutrient Thresholds, Phased Rollout and Seeks Mandatory Labelling Timeline Within Ten Days
Supreme Court Seeks FSSAI Response on Front-of-Pack Food Labels; Raises 13 Questions on Nutrient Thresholds, Red Hexagons, Phased Implementation and Consumer Literacy
Facts
The matter arose in Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 of 2024, concerning the implementation of Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) for packaged food products in India. The Supreme Court had earlier stressed the need for urgent progress on FoPL, particularly considering the scientifically recognised connection between foods high in fat, sugar or salt and health problems including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension.
In its earlier order dated 13 August 2026, the Court had linked the issue with the right to health under Article 21 and the State’s duty under Article 47 to improve public health. It had urged the Union and FSSAI to seriously consider an effective FoPL framework.
Responding to the Court, FSSAI filed an affidavit dated 28 August 2026 proposing a red-coloured hexagonal warning label on the front of packaged foods. Products high in specified nutrients would carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE.”
FSSAI proposed implementation in two phases. Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients and specified sweetened beverages, while Phase II would extend warnings to products high in any one specified nutrient.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that FSSAI had made significant progress, but found that several aspects governing the practical implementation of the proposal remained ambiguous and required clarification.
Issues
The principal issue was how India should design and implement an effective, scientifically justified and consumer-friendly mandatory FoPL regime for packaged foods containing unhealthy levels of fat, sugar and salt.
The Court examined, among other matters, the scientific basis of FSSAI’s two-phase approach; the definition and thresholds for HFSS foods; treatment of ultra-processed foods; whether total or added sugar and fat should be considered; warning-label dimensions, font, placement and colour; use of separate versus composite hexagons; pictorial warnings; transition to mandatory compliance; and nutritional literacy in schools.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner challenged FSSAI’s proposal to initially trigger warnings only when a product is high in two or more nutrients of concern.
It argued that sugar, salt and saturated fat cause distinct health risks independently. Excess sugar is linked to diabetes and metabolic disease, excess salt to hypertension and excess saturated fat to cardiovascular disease and adverse cholesterol. Accordingly, requiring two unhealthy nutrients before triggering Phase I warnings would substantially narrow the products covered without sufficient scientific justification.
The petitioner also proposed an alternative phased model resembling the Israeli approach: begin with comparatively higher nutrient thresholds and progressively lower them within predetermined timelines rather than initially excluding foods high in only one nutrient. The Court found prima facie logic in that proposal and asked FSSAI to consider it.
It further argued that warning thresholds should consider total sugar and total fat, rather than merely added sugar and added fat, and pointed to an earlier stakeholder consultation on FoPL. The consultation had reached consensus on total sugar and saturated fat for front-of-pack labels.
The petitioner additionally sought separate warning hexagons for individual nutrients so that consumers could immediately understand whether a product was high in sugar, fat, salt or multiple nutrients.
Respondent’s Arguments / FSSAI’s Proposal
FSSAI proposed that nutrient thresholds would be based upon the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN.
Its proposed red hexagonal label was intended to provide a simple, prominent and easily understandable warning to consumers. The proposed warning text included “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE.”
FSSAI proposed exemptions for single-ingredient products and products inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt, including ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey.
It proposed phased implementation to allow consumer acceptance and sufficient time for industry reformulation. Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified nutrients and specified sweetened beverages; Phase II would eventually cover foods high in any single nutrient of concern.
Analysis of the Law
Right to Health and State’s Public-Health Obligation
The Court approached FoPL not merely as a regulatory or packaging question but through the constitutional framework of public health.
It reiterated its earlier view that Article 21 encompasses the right to health, imposing a corresponding obligation upon the State to take affirmative measures protecting health. Article 47 additionally treats improvement of public health as a primary duty of the State.
FoPL was therefore viewed as a mechanism facilitating informed consumer choice and potentially encouraging manufacturers to reformulate unhealthy products.
Scientific Basis of the Two-Phase Approach
The Court identified an apparent inconsistency between different definitions of HFSS foods.
The 2024 Dietary Guidelines referred to foods prepared with excessive cooking oils/fats or more added sugar and salt, whereas the 2022 Draft Regulations defined HFSS as processed food containing high levels of saturated fat or total sugar or sodium.
The Court noted the difference between the conjunctive “and” and disjunctive “or”, observing that this reflected confusion that needed to be resolved before determining the basis of the phased strategy.
Fixed Timeline Required
The Court was particularly concerned that FSSAI had not identified a fixed period between Phase I and Phase II.
It warned that without a definite timeline, Phase II could take a “backseat” or be indefinitely postponed.
Consumer acceptability and giving industry time to reformulate products could not, in the Court’s view, justify such temporal uncertainty. A reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined transition period was necessary.
Nutrient Thresholds and Degree of Processing
The Court closely analysed the ICMR-NIN 2024 Guidelines and their categorisation of foods according to both degree of processing and nutrient levels.
It questioned whether minimally or moderately processed foods should be treated identically to ultra-processed foods, observing that the nutritional benefits of minimally processed foods may substantially exceed those of ultra-processed products.
Accordingly, FSSAI was asked to consider whether different nutrient thresholds could be fashioned depending upon the degree of processing.
Precedent Analysis
This order is principally a continuing regulatory and constitutional public-health proceeding, rather than a judgment resolving competing precedents.
The Court’s legal framework is anchored primarily in Article 21, through the right to health, and Article 47, imposing a constitutional obligation upon the State to improve public health.
The Court also examined the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, particularly the requirement that labels be clear, unambiguous, prominent, conspicuous and readily legible under normal conditions of purchase and use.
Court’s Reasoning
Warning Labels Must Actually Be Visible
FSSAI proposed warning-label text one point larger than the nutrition information appearing on the back of the package.
The Court found this proposal insufficiently developed because FSSAI had not specified the dimensions of the red hexagon itself.
It therefore sought clarification on whether warning size should be standardised or proportionate to package size, noting the petitioner’s submission that some countries use warning labels occupying approximately 15–20% of the principal package area.
Words Alone May Exclude Consumers
The Court raised a significant accessibility concern with FSSAI’s proposed word-based labels.
A warning stating “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” or “HIGH SALT” presupposes literacy and reading comprehension. India has diverse languages, literacy levels, regions and age groups.
The Court therefore suggested that an inclusive FoPL should consider combining words with pictorial representations of the relevant nutrients so that warnings remain accessible to a broader population.
Red Colour May Cause Confusion
The Court also questioned FSSAI’s choice of red.
Indian consumers are accustomed to associating colours on food packaging with vegetarian/non-vegetarian classifications. It therefore asked FSSAI to consider whether using red for the FoPL warning could create confusion and whether the colour should be reconsidered.
Possible Increase in Artificial Additives
The Court identified a possible unintended consequence of targeting sugar, fat and salt.
Manufacturers attempting to reduce those nutrients could increase the use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers and other additives to maintain taste, texture, shelf life and processing stability.
FSSAI was therefore directed to consider this risk while finalising thresholds and corresponding regulations governing such chemicals.
Mandatory Compliance
The petitioner urged that the final FoPL system be mandatory from the outset rather than discretionary.
The Court noted that the 2022 draft framework contemplated voluntary compliance for 48 months before becoming mandatory. It asked FSSAI to specifically respond on whether the new regime would be mandatory immediately and, if not, the reasonable period after which mandatory compliance would commence.
Nutritional Literacy for Children
The Court also expanded the discussion beyond packaging.
It highlighted children’s exposure to packaged snacks and asked the Union to explain how schools would incorporate nutritional literacy through curricula, workshops and other initiatives, including teaching children how to interpret nutritional information and FoPL warnings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court did not finally approve the red-hexagon FoPL proposal. Instead, it found that substantial regulatory and scientific questions remained unresolved.
It formulated 13 specific questions for the Union and FSSAI, covering the Phase I–Phase II timeline, scientific basis for the two-nutrient threshold, sweetened beverages, processing categories, total sugar/saturated fat/trans fat, colour, dimensions and placement of warning labels, pictorial representations, separate nutrient hexagons, artificial additives, mandatory compliance and nutritional literacy in schools.
The Court directed FSSAI to file a detailed affidavit within 10 days, with the response to be shared with the petitioner before the next hearing.
The matter was directed to be listed on 28 September 2026.
Case Details
Case: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 988
Case Number: 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: 10 September 2026
Result: FSSAI directed to respond within 10 days to 13 specific questions concerning its proposed Front-of-Package Labelling regime; matter posted for 28 September 2026.
