1. Introduction
This reportable order concerns the proposed introduction of Front-of-Package Labelling (“FoPL”) for packaged foods high in fat, sugar or salt. The petitioner sought effective regulatory action by the Union of India and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) against the public-health risks associated with High in Fat, Sugar or Salt (“HFSS”) foods and Ultra-Processed Foods (“UPF”).
In an earlier order dated 13 August 2026, the Supreme Court connected food labelling with the right to health under Article 21 and the State’s public-health duty under Article 47 of the Constitution. It called for prompt implementation of an intelligible warning system, particularly to protect children and facilitate informed consumer choice.
In response, the FSSAI proposed a red hexagonal warning label displaying expressions such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” or “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. Phase I would cover products high in two or more nutrients of concern and specified sweetened beverages; Phase II would cover products high in any one such nutrient.
Although the Court acknowledged significant progress, it found that the proposal lacked sufficient clarity on scientific thresholds, phasing, timelines, label size, placement, accessibility, nutrient calculations, mandatory enforcement and possible unintended consequences.
4. Analysis
4.1 Precedents Cited
The order does not cite any external judicial decision by case title. Therefore, no earlier reported judgment was applied, distinguished or overruled.
Its reasoning instead draws upon:
- the Court’s earlier order dated 13 August 2026 in the same proceedings, which linked Article 21, Article 47 and effective FoPL;
- the order dated 10 February 2026 in the same proceedings, which had reproduced illustrative international labels;
- the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024;
- the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022;
- the Food Safety Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020;
- the Stakeholders’ meeting on FoPL conducted on 29 October 2021;
- UNICEF’s Child Nutrition Report 2025; and
- the Israeli phased-labelling model.
The absence of cited case law is significant. The Court developed its approach directly from constitutional duties, existing regulatory standards and scientific material rather than from a conventional chain of precedents.
4.2 Article 21 and Article 47
The Court reiterated that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to health. This creates both a negative obligation not to impair health and an affirmative obligation to take reasonable protective measures. Article 47, which identifies improvement of public health as a primary duty of the State, reinforces the constitutional basis for effective food regulation.
Article 47 is a Directive Principle, but the Court uses it to inform the content of the enforceable right under Article 21. FoPL is therefore treated not merely as a consumer-information preference but as part of the State’s constitutional public-health responsibility.
4.3 Scientific coherence of the phased strategy
The proposed Phase I trigger—high levels of two or more nutrients—was questioned because excess sugar, salt and saturated fat can each independently create distinct health risks. Requiring two excessive nutrients may exclude products that are seriously harmful because of one nutrient alone.
The Court also identified an inconsistency between the conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” in different regulatory materials. This is not a drafting technicality: “and” requires multiple conditions, while “or” allows each nutrient independently to trigger a warning.
The Court found that any phased system must have a scientifically justified basis and a fixed transition date. “Consumer acceptability” and industry reformulation needs could justify a reasonable transition, but not an open-ended postponement of Phase II.
4.4 Alternative decreasing-threshold model
The petitioner proposed a model resembling the Israeli approach: begin with higher thresholds and reduce them within predetermined periods. The Court found prima facie logic in this approach.
Such a model could first target the most harmful category and later expand coverage. It could also prevent warning saturation—where almost every product carries the same symbol, leaving consumers unable to distinguish relatively more harmful products from less harmful ones.
4.5 Thresholds and levels of processing
Table 15.1 of the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 prescribes, per 100 ml of liquid, thresholds of 70 kcal, 175 mg salt, 2 g sugar and 1.5 g fat. For 100 g of solid food, it prescribes 250 kcal, 625 mg salt, 3 g sugar and 4.2 g fat.
Table 15.2 separately classifies foods by processing level—minimally processed, moderately processed and excessively processed—and by calorific category. The Court observed that categories 2 and 3 were both labelled HFSS but were not clearly differentiated by exact sugar, fat and salt levels.
The Court also cautioned against treating minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods as nutritionally equivalent. It suggested that processing levels might justify differentiated thresholds without abandoning the warning-label model itself.
4.6 Total, added, saturated and trans-fat calculations
The proposal relied at different points on added fat, added saturated fat and added sugar. However, the 2021 stakeholder consultation had reached consensus on “Total Sugars” and “Saturated Fat” for front-of-pack labelling.
The Court therefore required the FSSAI to explain whether its position had changed and how trans-fat would be treated. This reflects a broader requirement of regulatory consistency: departures from prior scientific consensus should be supported by reasons.
4.7 Functional visibility, not nominal disclosure
Under Regulation 4(7) of the Food Safety Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, label content must be clear, prominent, conspicuous and readily legible under normal conditions of purchase and use.
The FSSAI’s proposal for a font “one point larger” than the nutrition table was inadequate without specifying the hexagon’s dimensions. The Court accordingly sought clarity on whether the symbol would be standardised or proportional to package size, where it would be placed, and what background contrast would be required.
The reasoning shifts the focus from technical disclosure to actual communication. A warning satisfies its purpose only if an ordinary consumer can notice and understand it quickly.
4.8 Accessibility across literacy levels
A purely word-based warning assumes literacy and linguistic comprehension. Given India’s diversity, the Court suggested combining words with pictorial representations. It also recognised that label design must account for digital purchasing environments, where package images may appear at reduced sizes.
Similarly, separate hexagons for “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR” and “HIGH SALT” may communicate multiple risks more effectively than combining all warnings within one symbol. The Court did not mandate this design but required the FSSAI to justify its composite approach.
4.9 Choice of colour
The Court noted that Indian consumers may associate red food symbols with non-vegetarian products. It therefore asked whether the proposed red warning could create confusion. This illustrates that label design must account for established consumer habits, not merely abstract colour psychology.
4.10 Per-serving information versus a warning signal
The All India Food Processors Association proposed a Nutrient Reference Value-based, per-serving approach. The Court accepted that such information could be scientifically useful but considered that numerical data alone might be overlooked or operate as a “red herring”.
The Court preferred a clear cautionary signal based on the total content of nutrients of concern, while leaving room for supplementary numerical information.
4.11 Unintended reformulation risks
Sugar, salt and fat also perform functions relating to taste, texture, preservation and processing stability. Reducing them may encourage manufacturers to increase artificial preservatives, emulsifiers or substitute chemicals.
The Court accordingly required the FSSAI to consider corresponding controls on additives. The regulatory objective is healthier food, not merely products that technically avoid a warning.
4.12 Mandatory compliance
The Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022 contemplated voluntary compliance for 48 months before becoming mandatory. The petitioner sought mandatory compliance from the outset.
The Court did not decide this issue but required the FSSAI to specify whether a voluntary period was contemplated and, if so, its duration. Thus, the order does not itself impose an immediate labelling obligation on food businesses.
4.13 Nutritional literacy in schools
Relying on UNICEF’s Child Nutrition Report 2025, the Court highlighted children’s exposure to packaged foods around schools and the growth of childhood overweight. It asked the Union to explain how schools would teach students to interpret nutrition tables, FoPL warnings and other food information.
The Court therefore treats FoPL as one part of a wider public-health strategy combining regulation, consumer education and protection of vulnerable groups.