‘Do you not want India to stay healthy?’ Top court grills Centre, FSSAI over food labels
Supreme Court Rebukes FSSAI Over Food Warning Labels: ‘Are You Taking the Court for a Toss?’
Strong Words from the Bench
Bharatmorningnews.com – The Supreme Court delivered a sharp reprimand to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Thursday, challenging the regulator’s hesitation to implement front-of-pack warning labels for foods containing elevated levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fats. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran emphasized that Indian consumers, particularly children, deserve transparency about their food choices.
“You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?” the justices asked the Centre and FSSAI.
The bench stressed that India should not lower its public health standards simply because traditional Indian foods differ from those consumed in developed nations. The court expressed particular concern over minutes from a recent FSSAI meeting that revealed continued reluctance to adopt warning labels, even after the Supreme Court had previously directed the authority to consider the measure.
“Are you taking the court for a toss?” the bench queried, questioning whether food manufacturers’ influence was swaying the regulator’s decisions.
Pressure from Corporate Houses
The justices pointed out that the FSSAI appeared to be yielding to corporate interests rather than acting in the public’s best interest.
“There is immense pressure at the end of all these corporate houses on you. And you are succumbing to that pressure! We are doing this in public interest. Keep it in mind. We are not doing it for ourselves,” the bench stated.
Issuing a firm ultimatum, the court granted the Centre and FSSAI two weeks to formally record their final decision. The justices warned: “This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgement.”
Clarifying the Court’s Intent
The bench made it clear that it was not attempting to ban any specific food items or control consumer behavior. Instead, the objective was to ensure people receive clear information before making purchasing decisions.
“In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming,” the court explained.
FSSAI’s Defense: Traditional Foods and MSME Concerns
The hearing addressed a public interest litigation initiated by non-profit organizations 3S and Our Health, which sought mandatory warning labels on packaged foods indicating high concentrations of salt, sugar, and saturated fats.
Additional solicitor general Brijender Chahar, representing both the Centre and FSSAI, presented the government’s position. He argued that traditional Indian foods naturally contain higher levels of salt, sugar, and fat compared to what he characterized as “bland” foods in developed countries.
“The difficulty is that each of our traditional foods will have the red symbol on it. Whether it is namkeen etc warning that it is very harmful,” Chahar contended, noting that even eggs might exceed the proposed fat thresholds.
Chahar further highlighted potential negative impacts on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), pointing out that approximately one-third of MSME revenue derives from traditional food products.
“Even without a red label, everybody knows there is sugar, fat, carbs etc. no? This is to create public awareness,” he argued, emphasizing the need to safeguard children who increasingly consume such products.
Court Rejects Manufacturer Concerns
The Supreme Court dismissed the argument that warning labels would unduly harm manufacturers. The justices noted that while companies might resist the labels due to potential business impacts, consumers retain the freedom to choose regardless of warnings.
“Manufacturers may not like this because it may affect their business. Even after these warnings, it’s the discretion of the person who purchases it. He may still purchase it or he may not purchase. Why are you reluctant to do this?” the court asked.
Background: A Year-Long Battle
This confrontation follows the Supreme Court’s August 4 order, in which it expressed dissatisfaction with FSSAI’s compliance affidavit and specifically directed the authority to consider front-of-package labelling, noting that such systems were “internationally prevalent.” The court had ordered FSSAI to respond within four weeks at that time.
The matter has remained pending for over a year. The original public interest litigation was disposed of in April 2025 after FSSAI informed the court that an expert committee would recommend amendments to food labelling regulations. The regulator’s proposed Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system envisioned a 0.5-to-5 star rating for packaged foods, considering factors including sugar, salt, saturated fat, energy, protein, and fibre.
However, the process encountered delays. FSSAI reported receiving more than 14,000 comments on the proposal and conducting five expert committee meetings, yet later indicated a lack of consensus regarding the INR format. The regulator subsequently proposed additional amendments to address these challenges.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Do you not want India to stay?
Do you not want India to stay is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Do you not want India to stay matter?
Do you not want India to stay matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.