Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels

“Prima facie, whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result” – In a significant order reinforcing the constitutional commitment to public health, the Supreme Court of India expressed dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) regarding implementation of Front-of-Pack Labelling (FoPL) on packaged food products.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that despite earlier directions, no effective progress had been made in amending the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 to incorporate a meaningful front-of-pack nutrition warning system. The Court directed FSSAI to reconsider the matter and revert within four weeks, keeping the issue alive in its compliance jurisdiction.

The case raises fundamental questions concerning the right to health under Article 32 of the Constitution and the statutory obligations of FSSAI under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The writ petition was filed in public interest seeking a mandamus to the Union of India for issuing appropriate regulations mandating Front-of-Pack Warning Labels (FoPL) on packaged foods, especially highlighting high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fats.

The petitioner contended that in the absence of clear warning labels, consumers are deprived of meaningful nutritional information, thereby affecting their right to make informed dietary choices and ultimately impacting public health.

On 09 April 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of the main writ petition with specific directions. It recorded the stand of FSSAI that draft amendments introducing the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) star-based system had been notified in 2022 and that over 14,000 objections and suggestions had been received from stakeholders. An Expert Committee had been constituted to examine the feedback.

The Court directed the Expert Committee to prepare its recommendations and submit a report “at the earliest” so that necessary amendments could be effected within three months. The matter was directed to be listed thereafter for compliance.

Legal Framework and Regulatory Domain

The issue revolves around the powers and duties of FSSAI under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

Section 4 establishes FSSAI as the statutory authority to lay down science-based standards for food articles. Section 16(1) mandates the Authority to regulate and monitor the manufacture, distribution and sale of food to ensure public health and safety. Section 16(2)(h) specifically empowers it to frame regulations on food labelling standards. Section 23 deals with packaging and labelling requirements, and Section 92(2)(k) empowers the Authority to make regulations consistent with the Act.

The Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 presently govern labelling norms. In 2022, draft amendments proposing the Indian Nutrition Rating (INR) star-based Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) were issued. The INR system proposed a star rating from 0.5 to 5 stars based on nutrient profiling.

However, implementation remained stalled amid stakeholder objections and lack of consensus.

Court’s Scrutiny of Compliance Affidavit

When the matter came up to ascertain compliance with the earlier directions, the Bench examined the affidavit dated 30 January 2026 filed by FSSAI.

The affidavit stated that there were “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.”

It further stated that assessing feasibility of the INR model “cannot be judged without operationalising” it and that further research, surveys and stakeholder consultations were proposed before taking any further steps.

Additionally, FSSAI referred to the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2025, which proposed bold display of nutrition information. However, even that proposal had been deferred by the Food Authority in its 49th meeting held on 24 November 2025.

The Court was unimpressed.

In a pointed observation, the Bench stated, “Prima-facie, we are of the view that whatever exercise has been undertaken so far has not yielded any positive or good result.”

The Court reminded that the PIL “raised an important issue as regards the right to health of the citizens of this country.”

Right to Health and Judicial Monitoring

The proceedings are rooted in Article 32, invoking the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights. Though the right to health is not explicitly enumerated, it has consistently been read into Article 21 as part of the right to life.

The Court’s insistence on effective regulatory action signals that statutory authorities cannot indefinitely defer policy decisions under the pretext of consultations when core public health concerns are involved.

The Bench noted that continued consultations, stakeholder objections, and studies cannot become a ground for perpetual delay where citizen health is at stake.

Court Endorses Warning Label Model

Importantly, the Court recorded a suggestion made by the petitioner’s counsel that instead of a complex star-rating system, packaged food products should carry a clear warning on the wrapper itself through Front-of-Pack Labelling.

The Court observed that this suggestion “makes some sense” and directed the authority to take this aspect into consideration. It further acknowledged that “FoPL is something which is internationally prevalent.”

This observation is significant as it indicates judicial openness to a stricter warning-label regime, similar to those adopted in several jurisdictions globally, where high sugar, salt or fat content is flagged prominently on the packaging.

Monitoring Jurisdiction Retained

The Bench directed FSSAI to revert within four weeks and listed the matter accordingly, thereby retaining seisin over the compliance issue.

This transforms what was earlier a disposed PIL into a continuing mandamus situation, where the Court actively monitors regulatory compliance in matters affecting public health.

The Supreme Court’s order underscores that regulatory hesitation cannot override constitutional commitments. When a matter implicates the right to health of millions, regulatory indecision cannot be shielded behind stakeholder consultations and procedural formalities.

By expressing dissatisfaction with the compliance affidavit and directing reconsideration within a fixed timeline, the Court has sent a clear message: public health regulation cannot remain trapped in bureaucratic inertia.

The coming weeks will determine whether FSSAI moves towards implementing a robust Front-of-Pack Warning Labelling regime or continues to navigate between competing industry and public health interests.