Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Scrutinizes FSSAI’s Timeline for Front-of-Pack Nutrition Warning Labels
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On September 28, 2026 the Supreme Court reserved its order in a hearing that questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the proposed timeline for introducing front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) on foods high in added sugar, salt and saturated fat. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran directed all parties to file written submissions within three days and warned that any eventual order will be binding on the regulator.
Background & Context
- 2022 – FSSAI launched the Indian Nutrition Rating system, later replaced by a warning-label regime.
- 2022-2026 – Draft regulations attracted over 14,000 comments; an expert committee was formed in February 2023. Earlier court orders (Sept 10, Aug 13, Aug 28) sought clarification on label design, nutrient thresholds and the implementation schedule.
- A public-interest litigation by non-profits 3S and Our Health Society, represented by advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, seeks mandatory FoPL modelled on foreign jurisdictions.
Data & Statistics
- Label design – Red hexagon on a white square, top-left corner, font larger than the back-of-pack nutrition table.
- Nutrient thresholds – Based on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024: added sugar 3 % by weight in solids, added fat 4.2 % (industry cites these figures).
- Regulatory timeline – FSSAI estimates four months to draft the regulations, followed by a 365-day voluntary compliance period for Food Business Operators. Notification is planned for July 1, after which the voluntary period would begin.
Official Statements & Responses
- Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar explained that the 2022 star-rating framework differed from the current warning-label yardstick, that four months are needed to draft the regulations, and that the length of the compliance period is left to the Court’s determination.
- FSSAI’s affidavit (Sept 23) shifted to a single-phase rollout, arguing that a 365-day voluntary transition avoids commercial hardship for firms with pre-printed packaging and that the four-month drafting window is reasonable.
Criticism & Opposition
- Industry – The All India Food Processors Association warned that the red hexagon could be confused with the mandatory non-vegetarian symbol and that the proposed thresholds are stricter than those in several foreign markets.
- Petitioners – 3S and Our Health Society, through Dwivedi, opposed the voluntary window, contending it would delay mandatory warnings and give manufacturers little incentive to reformulate. They proposed a one-month compliance period with sticker-based warnings.
- Expert – Dr Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), called a July 2028 implementation “unreasonable from a public-health perspective” and urged the Court to require earlier enforcement.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Timeline ambiguity – FSSAI’s draft suggests notification by July 1 and a subsequent 365-day voluntary period, potentially pushing mandatory compliance to July 2028. Petitioners argue this delays the measure by six years from the original 2022 draft.
- Nutrient definition – FSSAI bases warnings on “added” sugar and fat, while petitioners and some NGOs advocate using total sugar and total fat, citing testing difficulties and loopholes with fruit-based sweeteners.
- Label design – The Court has asked for clarification on colour and symbol; industry cites possible confusion with non-vegetarian markings, while regulators reference international models such as Canada’s.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court will issue its final order after reviewing the written submissions due within three days. It may require the regulator to define “ultra-processed food” before finalising the FoPL framework.