The Supreme Court has questioned the scientific basis of the FSSAI's proposal to confine Phase I of its Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) scheme to products high in two or more nutrients-of-concern, noting that excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently harmful and act through different pathways, and has separately flagged that the proposed red hexagonal warning label risks being confused by consumers with non-vegetarian labelling, given their habituation to associating red with non-veg products.

Beyond these two specific concerns, the Court also found the proposed font size and undisclosed dimensions of the hexagonal logo inadequately explained, questioned the absence of individual pictorial icons for each nutrient-of-concern in a word-heavy label, and noted the lack of a fixed timeline for transitioning to Phase II or for mandatory compliance; it has accordingly directed the FSSAI to file a fresh affidavit within ten days answering thirteen specific questions before the FoPL regime can be finalised.


A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, observed, “The FSSAI’s proposal has suggested a ‘red’ hexagonal label presently. However, some apprehensions regarding the potential confusion of the colour with non-veg ingredient(s) present in the packaged product, have been raised. Consumers have been habituated into associating the green colour with veg products and the red colour with non-veg products, especially in the context of labels. Therefore, we would like the FSSAI to put some thought into whether the choice of colour needs to be re-visited”.

“…we would also like to know from the FSSAI why they have steered away from adopting separate hexagons for each nutrient-of-concern. We understand that the plan, as of now, is to implement the FoPL in two phases and focus on products which are high in two or more nutrients-of-concern or specified highly sweetened beverages in Phase I…”, the Bench noted further.

Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR appeared for the applicant while Brijender Chahar, A.S.G, Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Devadatt Kamat appeared for the respondent.

The Bench said that it we would like the Union and the FSSAI respectively to provide an appropriate response to the following questions:

i. What is a reasonable and fixed timeline that the FSSAI envisages for the implementation of the two phases currently proposed?

ii. What is the basis for the FSSAI to suggest the inclusion of food products high in ‘two or more’ nutrients-of-concern and specified sweetened beverages in Phase I, and the inclusion of food products high in ‘any one’ nutrient-of-concern in Phase II respectively?

iii. How does the FSSAI propose to identify the specific sweetened beverages which fall under Phase I of the proposal? Additionally, what are the threshold levels of the specific nutrient(s)-in-concern for such beverages?

iv. Whether, in their calculation of the threshold levels for each nutrient-of-concern, the FSSAI wishes to account for the difference between food categories 2 and 3 respectively in the FoPL?

v. Whether, in their calculation of the threshold levels for each nutrient-of-concern, the FSSAI wishes to account for the difference between food groups B (moderately processed with no additives) and C (excessively processed with additives) respectively in the FoPL?

vi. Whether the threshold limits for Fat and Sugar are to be calculated on the basis of ‘Total’ Sugar and ‘Saturated Fat’ as indicated in the Stakeholders meeting conducted on 29.10.2021? Furthermore, how would trans-fat levels be factored into the calculations of the fat content for the purpose of the FoPL?

vii. Considering that an average Indian consumer is habituated into associating the colour red with non-veg ingredients, would it be necessary for the FSSAI to revisit the choice of colour for the FoPL?

viii. What are dimensions of the ‘red hexagon’ proposed to be used in the FoPL? Whether it would have standardized specifications or whether it would be calculated in proportion to the area of the package? Whether the font size used for the FoPL would be relative to the dimensions of the hexagon themselves? The manner and method of the placement of such hexagon(s)?

ix. Without the presence of distinct pictorial representations for each nutrient-of-concern in the FoPL, how does the FSSAI propose to cater to the diverse levels of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability of the consuming population?

x. Why has the FSSAI suggested a combined/composite/singular hexagon for two or more nutrients-of-concern instead of separate/distinct/individual hexagons for each nutrient-of-concern?

xi. How would the FSSAI regulate the potential increase in the use of artificial preservative, emulsifiers etc., which may result as a consequence of the implementation of the FoPL?

xii. Once the final regulations making the FoPL mandatory come to be notified, whether a voluntary period for compliance is envisaged? If yes, for how long?

xiii. How the Union of India proposes to incorporate through curriculum, initiatives, workshops etc., (i) the manner in which information provided in packaged food items, including nutritional information, FoPL etc., must be interpreted, and (ii) other aspects relating to nutritional literacy, at the school-level?

The petitioner, 3S and Our Health Society, had approached the Court under Article 32 highlighting the well-documented link between High Fat, Sugar or Salt (HFSS) and Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF) and the rising incidence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension, particularly among children, and sought effective front-of-pack warning labelling drawing on international standards.

By its earlier order dated August 13, 2026, the Court had impressed upon the Union of India and the FSSAI the urgency of implementing FoPL, invoking the right to health under Article 21 and the State's duty under Article 47 to improve public health, and had granted two weeks for the Union to place its final decision on record, cautioning that it would otherwise proceed to pass further directions itself.

In response, the FSSAI filed an affidavit dated August 28, 2026 proposing a red hexagonal warning label, bearing declarations such as "HIGH FAT", "HIGH SUGAR" or "HIGH SALT", for products crossing nutrient-of-concern thresholds under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, to be rolled out in two phases, exempting single-ingredient foods and inherently HFSS items such as ghee, sugar and honey.

Examining the affidavit, the Court found the basis for splitting implementation into two phases unclear, noting a disparity between the "and/or" formulation in the 2024 Guidelines and the "or" formulation in the Draft 2022 Regulations, and observed that the sub-classification of foods into categories 2 and 3 under Table 15.2 of the Guidelines did not intelligibly differentiate threshold levels of added fat, sugar and salt. On the colour of the label, the Court noted that consumers have been habituated into associating green with vegetarian and red with non-vegetarian products, and asked the FSSAI to reconsider its choice.

It further raised concerns regarding the use of "added" rather than "total" sugar and fat contrary to an earlier stakeholder consensus, the risk of increased use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers to replace targeted nutrients, and the need for mandatory compliance rather than one left to the discretion of food business operators. The Court also directed attention to nutritional literacy initiatives for schoolchildren, who it noted face disproportionate exposure to packaged snacks in the vicinity of schools.

Cause Title: 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr., (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 988)

Appearances:

Applicant: Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR, Arti Dvivedi, S.k. Sarkar, Advocates.

Respondent: Brijender Chahar, A.S.G., Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR, Anmol Chandan, Bhuvan Kapoor, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Gopi Chand, Karan Chahar, Shubham Saxena, Vaishnav Kirti Singh, Sudarshan Lamba, AOR, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Harsh Hiroo Gurshani, Suhaan Mukerji, Shubhank Patel, M/s PLR Chambers and Co., AOR, Nishanth Patil, AOR, Rohit Sharma, Nikhil Purohit, Jatin Lalwani, Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR, Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Harpreet Singh Gupta, AOR, Srajan Jain, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Order




Tags: