The Supreme Court strongly criticised a compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in a public interest litigation that seeks mandatory front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods showing sugar, salt and saturated fat levels.

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a miscellaneous application arising from a Public Interest Litigation filed by ‘3S and Our Health Society’. The petition asked the Union government to introduce clear front-of-package nutrition warnings labels on such products.

Facts:

The original writ petition had been disposed of on April 9, 2025, after the Court was told that FSSAI had started the process of introducing Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling through proposed amendments to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. At that time, the judges directed an FSSAI-appointed Expert Committee to submit its recommendations within three months so that amendments could be made, and the matter would then be checked for compliance.

During the latest hearing, the Bench examined the January 30, 2026 affidavit filed by Dr. Kavitha Ramasamy, Joint Director of FSSAI. The affidavit stated that the Expert Committee could not reach stakeholder consensus on the 2022 Indian Nutrition Rating model due to doubts about the star-rating algorithm and how it would work in practice.

The affidavit also mentioned the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2025, which were notified in February 2025 to show bolder nutrition information on labels. But, the proposal was deferred at FSSAI’s 49th meeting held on November 24, 2025, for consideration in a future meeting.

FSSAI said it plans more research, including mapping packaged food categories, conducting consumer label surveys, reviewing international labelling systems and wider consultations with stakeholders, including SMEs.

The Court said these steps had not produced any results and stressed that the PIL concerns the citizens’ right to health. The judges also noted the petitioner’s demand for direct warning labels on food packets — a practice used globally — and observed:

“Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result. The PIL was filed with a particular purpose. It raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country. Today, what has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also makes some sense and we want the authority to take this aspect into consideration.”

In conclusion, the Court directed FSSAI to seriously consider this suggestion, granted four weeks to file a fresh affidavit, and listed the matter for the next hearing.

Case details: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India