Supreme Court Issues Ultimatum To Centre Over Food Item Labelling Rules

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Centre two weeks to comply with its directions on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat. A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed strong displeasure with the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the progress on the issue.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation concerning warning labels intended to help consumers identify packaged foods high in added sugar, salt and saturated fats. The bench questioned the government's approach after the petitioner pointed to the FSSAI's position that the food industry was opposed to such labelling. The court stressed that the matter directly concerns public health, particularly the health of growing children.

The petitioner's counsel referred to minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7 and argued that decisions taken during the meeting were inconsistent with earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court. The counsel also pointed out that the FSSAI's affidavit focused on the industry's opposition to warning labels while allegedly overlooking evidence submitted by civil society representatives supporting such disclosures to discourage excessive consumption of unhealthy packaged foods.

Also Read: Shiv Sena Row: Supreme Court Examines Whether Party Split Occurred First

The bench questioned Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre, over whether the government was unwilling to take the necessary action. The court also questioned whether corporate pressure was influencing the government's position, observing that manufacturers might oppose warning labels but consumers should have access to clear information about what they are purchasing. “If you cannot do it, we will pass an order,” the bench reiterated.

The Centre argued that applying standards followed in some developed countries could create difficulties for traditional Indian foods, pointing to products such as namkeen that could potentially receive warning marks. The court rejected the argument that India should adopt a different approach because food products in developed countries generally contain lower levels of salt, sugar and fat. “Should India remain an underdeveloped country?” the bench asked while questioning the government's position.

The Supreme Court clarified that warning labels are intended to inform consumers rather than prevent the sale of products. It observed that manufacturers may be concerned about the potential business impact, but the ultimate decision should remain with consumers who are given adequate information. The court granted the Centre two weeks to comply with the proposed labelling directions and warned that a verdict would be pronounced at the next hearing if the required action was not taken.

Also Read: SC Leaves Demolition Rehabilitation Policy To States, Rejects Plea For National Framework