Consumers Have a Right to Know What They Eat: Supreme Court Pushes for Swift Action on Food Labeling

“The Right to Health Includes the Right to Be Informed”, - Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict in the public interest case of 3S And Our Health Society vs Union of India, emphasizing the constitutional importance of food transparency. The Court, while disposing of the Public Interest Litigation under Article 32, directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to expedite the finalisation of the Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling (FOPNL) system and submit the report of its Expert Committee within three months.
The case underscored a pivotal health and consumer rights issue—whether packaged food products should carry easy-to-understand warning labels on their front, indicating the levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fats. The Court didn’t hesitate to assert, “Consumers have a right to know what they eat.”
“FSSAI Has the Statutory Duty to Inform and Protect Consumers”: Background and Arguments
The case originated from concerns raised by 3S And Our Health Society, a public interest group, seeking directions from the Court to mandate clear front-of-pack labels on processed foods. These labels, the petitioner argued, are vital to inform the public about high sugar, salt, and fat content—especially amidst India’s rising epidemic of obesity and lifestyle diseases.
Appearing for the government, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar referred to the affidavit filed by FSSAI, explaining the steps taken to implement such regulations. The Court was informed that the FSSAI had initiated the amendment process to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, proposing a star-based Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) system in 2022.
The FSSAI in its affidavit stated: “The Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) is designed to provide consumers with simplified, easy-to-understand information on nutritional content, assisting them in making healthier dietary choices.”
However, the Court expressed concern at the delay in final implementation despite the draft regulations being notified in September 2022 and over 14,000 comments being received from public health bodies, food businesses, and consumers.
“You Have Consulted the Public—Now Implement the Law”: Court Urges Speedy Completion of the Regulatory Process
The affidavit revealed that an Expert Committee was constituted by the FSSAI on February 17, 2023, to review public feedback. The committee has met five times and prepared its recommendation report, which now awaits review by the Scientific Committee before submission to the Food Authority.
The Court remarked: “The Union has decided to undertake necessary amendments… Let this exercise be taken within a period of three months from today.”
In doing so, the Court did not merely close the matter—it ensured continued judicial oversight by listing it again after three months to check compliance. This proactive approach reflects judicial sensitivity toward both consumer rights and public health.
“This Is a Matter of Public Health, Not Mere Regulation”: Supreme Court Recognizes Constitutional Dimensions
The Court strongly invoked the statutory framework of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, observing that under Section 16, the FSSAI is entrusted with the duty to regulate and monitor food to ensure public health and safety. Notably, the Court held that delaying transparent labelling frustrates this statutory mandate.
Referencing the Act’s purpose, the Court acknowledged:
“The object of the legislation is to ensure the availability of safe and wholesome food… the responsibility is both regulatory and preventive.”
It further highlighted that food labelling is not just a regulatory issue but one that “directly impacts the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“A Transparent Star Rating Cannot Be a Loophole for Junk Food to Shine”: Court Hints at Balanced Nutrition Rating Standards
While the Court refrained from getting into the technicalities of the INR star-rating model, it took note of the criticism that adding minor amounts of healthy nutrients should not allow unhealthy foods to get better ratings.
The FSSAI had assured the Court: “The inclusion of positive nutrients is regulated through caps to prevent nutritionally poor products from receiving disproportionately high ratings…”
The Supreme Court appeared to accept this explanation while urging completion of the process. But the underlying message was clear: regulatory systems must genuinely inform and protect, not obfuscate or mislead

Final Word: “Don’t Just Propose—Implement”
Disposing of the PIL, the bench concluded: “We dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to the Expert Committee to prepare its recommendation and submit a Report in that regard at the earliest so that relying on the report, the necessary amendments can be given effect to.”
The matter will return to the docket in three months, by which time the government must report compliance.
 

Date of Decsion: April 9, 2025