The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Centre two weeks to act on the implementation of 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 over the government’s response during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation concerning food labelling.
The court questioned the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) over the delay and stressed that consumers, particularly children, have the right to know what is contained in packaged food.
Supreme Court questions Centre, FSSAI
The court questioned whether the government was facing pressure from food industry stakeholders while considering the proposed warning-label system.
The Bench emphasised that decisions concerning food safety should be guided by public interest and not corporate considerations.
The court also questioned why its earlier directions had not been implemented and asked the Centre to explain what steps had been taken so far.
“Will the government do it itself, or will we have to issue an order?” the Bench asked.
When Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar sought time to explain the government’s position, the court reiterated that the Centre should comply with its directions.
“If you cannot do it, we will pass an order,” the Bench said.
FSSAI cites industry concerns
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel referred to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7 and argued that the food regulator’s position was inconsistent with earlier directions of the court.
The FSSAI has cited opposition from the food industry to warning labels. Instead, it has proposed a tabular declaration showing the recommended daily requirements for added sugar, saturated fats and salt.
The petitioner, however, argued that the FSSAI’s affidavit did not adequately consider evidence submitted by civil society representatives in support of warning labels.
Court rejects argument on Indian food
The Centre also raised concerns about applying international food-labelling standards to traditional Indian foods.
The government cited examples such as namkeen, arguing that applying certain thresholds could result in warning marks appearing on several commonly consumed Indian food products.
The court questioned whether India should avoid international standards simply because its food habits differ from those in developed countries.
The Bench also stressed that warning labels are intended to inform consumers rather than prevent the sale of products.
“Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know,” the court observed.
Consumer choice at centre of debate
The Supreme Court said the presence of a warning label would not necessarily stop consumers from purchasing a product.
Instead, the objective would be to ensure that people are aware of the nutritional content before making a purchase.
The Bench maintained that manufacturers’ commercial interests should not determine decisions concerning consumer information and public health.
Centre gets two weeks
The Supreme Court has now granted the Centre two weeks to comply with the proposed labelling directions.
The Bench warned that if the government does not take the necessary action, the court may issue an order on the matter at the next hearing.
The case places renewed focus on how packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat are labelled and how consumers are informed about potential health risks.
