-
by sayum
14 September 2026 6:04 AM
"The right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to health. When the Constitution guarantees this right, it casts a corresponding duty on the State to not only refrain from actions that impair the health but also to take affirmative steps to protect it." Supreme Court of India, in a significant order dated 10th September 2026, has underscored the constitutional obligation of the State to prioritize public health by implementing an effective Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) system for packaged food products.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that the nexus between High Fat, Sugar, or Salt (HFSS) foods and non-communicable diseases like diabetes and hypertension is scientifically established, mandating State intervention to facilitate informed consumer choices. The Court categorically rejected the Union's argument regarding the difficulty of matching international standards, questioning, "Should India remain as an underdeveloped country?"
The petition was filed by 3S and Our Health Society seeking directions for the mandatory implementation of FoPL to combat the rising health risks associated with ultra-processed foods. The Supreme Court had previously issued directions on 13th August 2026, urging the Union of India and the FSSAI to formulate a robust labelling mechanism. While acknowledging the progress made by the FSSAI, the Court found the current proposals, including the use of a ‘red hexagon’ and a phased implementation strategy, to be lacking in clarity and scientific rigour.
The core legal issues before the Court involved determining the constitutional validity of the State's inaction regarding public health labelling, the scientific sufficiency of the proposed FoPL thresholds, and the necessity of mandatory compliance. The Court was further required to adjudicate on the specific design parameters, including font size, placement, and the
Constitutional Mandate Under Article 47
The Court reiterated that Article 47 of the Constitution of India casts a primary duty on the State to improve public health. The bench emphasized that this duty necessitates affirmative action beyond mere regulation, specifically concerning the labelling of hazardous food products.
Scientific Justification For Labelling
The bench expressed concern over the "two or more threshold" criteria proposed by the FSSAI for Phase I, noting that excess sugar, salt, and fat act through independent biological pathways. The Court observed that "requiring the presence of high levels of two or more nutrients-of-concern as a triggering criteria is not backed by science and severely narrows down the products which would be covered."
Need For A Fixed Timeline
The Court criticized the lack of a defined transitionary period between the two proposed phases of implementation. It observed that without a scientifically justified and fixed timeline, the implementation of Phase II might take a "backseat or be indefinitely postponed," which would be antithetical to the public interest.
Importance Of Standardized Dimensions
On the issue of logo design, the Court noted that the FSSAI’s proposal was silent on the size and dimensions of the red hexagon. It remarked that "a discussion on the size, dimensions and other details of the hexagonal FoPL are also crucial," suggesting that labels should occupy 15-20% of the principal display area to ensure they are "prominent, conspicuous and readily legible."
Concerns Regarding Phased Implementation
The Court suggested that the FSSAI should consider an alternate model similar to the Israeli system, where the implementation begins with higher thresholds and progressively moves to lower ones. It noted that the present proposal risks confusing consumers if all products carry a label or, conversely, if the benchmark is set so low that it fails to distinguish between relatively harmful and less harmful products.
"The consumers would be left confused and would be effectively denied a ‘healthier choice’ if all products carry the warning and consumers would not be able to separate the products having relatively more harmful levels of the nutrients-of-concern."
Rationalizing Total Nutrients vs Added Nutrients
The Court highlighted that consensus from a 2021 stakeholder meeting favoured using "Total Sugar" and "Total Fat" rather than "Added" variants, as energy calculations are based on total content. The bench questioned why the FSSAI’s current proposal seemingly deviates from this earlier consensus, noting that "the 'unholiness' arises not only from the added sugar and added fat in a food product. It is the total value of these nutrients available in a product which has to be considered."
Risk Of Unintended Chemical Additives
A critical obiter dictum was issued regarding the potential for industry stakeholders to increase the use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers to replace fat, sugar, or salt. The Court directed that the FSSAI must "keep this danger in mind" while finalizing threshold limits and must frame corresponding regulations to monitor the use of these chemicals in packaged food environments.
Directives To The FSSAI
The Supreme Court concluded by posing thirteen specific questions to the Union and the FSSAI, requiring them to justify their current approach. These queries cover the logic behind the "two or more" nutrient threshold, the identification of sweetened beverages, the adequacy of the proposed font size, and the need for pictorial representations alongside text to account for the diverse literacy levels in the Indian population. The FSSAI is directed to file a comprehensive response within 10 days.
The Supreme Court’s order significantly advances the right to health as an enforceable constitutional right, compelling the State to move beyond vague proposals toward a concrete, scientifically rigorous labelling regime. The matter is posted for further hearing on 28th September 2026, marking a critical step in the judicial oversight of food safety and public health policies in India.
Date of Decision: 10 September 2026
