Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan recently expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front-of-package warning labels on packaged food products. The Bench was hearing a miscellaneous application in the matter, where the petitioners sought directions to the Union government and the food regulator to introduce clear front-of-pack warnings indicating high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats in packaged foods. Finding the steps disclosed so far inadequate for reporting compliance with its earlier directions, the Court asked the authority to reconsider the proposal for warning-style front-of-package labelling and revert within four weeks, listing the matter thereafter.

In its counter affidavit, FSSAI stated that it is a statutory body established under Section 4 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, entrusted with regulating food standards and labelling under Section 16 of the Act. It referred to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 and a draft amendment dated 13.09.2022 proposing the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system. It stated that over 14,000 comments were received from stakeholders and that an Expert Committee was constituted on 17.02.2023 to review the feedback.

Also Read: Disqualification From Public Employment Removed When Offender Is Released On Probation; Appointment Cannot Be Denied Solely On Prior Conviction: Delhi High Court

Upon earlier disposal of the writ petition, the Court directed the Expert Committee to submit its report within three months. In the present proceedings, a compliance affidavit was filed stating that there was no consensus among stakeholders on the INR format and that further research and consultations were proposed.

The Court recorded that it was examining whether there had been due compliance of its earlier directions. It noted: “Today, we are looking into the matter to ascertain whether there has been due compliance of our directions issued in the order referred to above.”

Upon perusal of the compliance affidavit, the Court stated: “The respondent no.4 (FSSAI) has filed compliance affidavit with which we are not satisfied.”

Referring to the affidavit, the Court reproduced the statement that “there are several concerns among the stakeholders regarding the applicability of the algorithm” and that “there is no consensus among the stakeholders on INR format draft notified by FSSAI in 2022.”

The Court further recorded that “FSSAI has already notified the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2025, inter alia relating to nutrition information in bold letters (hereinafter referred to as Amendment Regulations 2025) on 17th February, 2025 and uploaded on the FSSAI website on 20 February 2025, inviting public comments up to 20th April, 2025.” It also noted that “The suggestion of the SC along with draft notification was placed as agenda before the Food Authority in the 49th Food Authority meeting held on 24.11.2025. The Authority deferred the agenda item for discussion in the next meeting.”

After considering the affidavit, the Court observed: “Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result.” It further stated: “The PIL was filed with a particular purpose. It raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country.”

Regarding the petitioner’s submission, the Court recorded: “Today, what has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also makes some sense and we want the authority to take this aspect into consideration.”

The Court then noted the suggestion: “The suggestion is that on the wrapper/packet of any pre-packaged food product, there must be warning in the form of front-of-package labelling.” It also stated: “FoPL is something which is internationally prevalent.”

Also Read: Condonation Of Delay Not A Matter Of Right, Entirely Court’s Discretion: Supreme Court

The Court directed: “Let the authority revert to us within a period of four weeks. List the matter accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, AOR; Ms. Arti Dvivedi, Adv.; Mr. S.K. Sarkar, Adv.; Ms. Sugandha Bhardwaj, Adv.; Mr. Bhushan, Adv.; Ms. Priya, Adv.; Ms. Snigdha Singh, Adv.; Ms. Priyanka Parmar, Adv.; Ms. Sweta Singh, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G.; Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.; Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv.; Mr. Vaishnav Kriti Singh, Adv.; Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv.; Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR; Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR; M/s PLR Chambers and Co., AOR; Mr. Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Adv.; Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.; Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv.; Mr. Shubhank Patel, Adv.; Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv.; Ms. Vanshika Jain, Adv.

Case Title: 3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr.

Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan