SC issues two-week ultimatum to Centre on front-of-pack food labels
The Supreme Court has pulled up the Union government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) for the prolonged delay in finalising front-of-pack food warning labels. The court gave the Centre a two-week deadline to make a clear decision, warning that it may step in if the government fails to act. The bench emphasised that the issue is not merely procedural but directly linked to public health, especially for children.
Front-of-pack labelling refers to symbols or text placed on the front of packaged foods to help consumers easily understand the nutritional content. These labels typically indicate whether a product contains high levels of sugar, salt, or saturated fats. Such information is meant to support healthier choices, particularly for individuals who do not read the detailed nutrition table on the back of the packet.
During the hearing, the court dismissed arguments that front-of-pack labels would conflict with traditional Indian food practices or that foreign labelling standards would not suit domestic products. The justices said that such objections cannot override the right to health of citizens. They also observed that the process has already been delayed for years without a final decision.
The FSSAI has been working on regulations for front-of-pack labels for some time. Earlier drafts and discussions have explored various formats, including warning symbols and health star ratings. However, the proposal has been revisited multiple times, allowing the matter to linger. This has drawn criticism from public health experts, who point to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and other lifestyle diseases in India.
Children are among the most vulnerable to the marketing of processed foods. They are often drawn to products high in sugar, salt, and fat, and may not understand the health implications. Clear, prominent warning labels would enable parents and caregivers to make informed decisions. The court specifically highlighted this concern, stating that the health of children cannot be compromised by administrative delays.
The bench also remarked that the government cannot use the argument of consulting stakeholders indefinitely. While stakeholder input is important, the court said, it cannot become a reason to postpone a decision that affects millions of people. The court stated that if the Centre does not decide within the two-week period, it may issue directions on its own to implement the labelling framework.
Public health advocates have welcomed the court’s intervention. They argue that mandatory front-of-pack labels are a cost-effective way to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. Studies from other countries have shown that simple, easily understandable labels can significantly influence consumer behaviour.
The Supreme Court’s directive is significant because it shifts the focus from deliberation to action. It signals that the right to health cannot be held hostage by procedural inertia. With the two-week deadline in place, the Centre and the FSSAI are now expected to arrive at a conclusive decision. If they fail, the matter will likely return to the courtroom, where the court may impose its own solution.
As the deadline approaches, the expectation is that public health considerations will take precedence over competing interests. The court has made clear that enough time has been given for discussion; what is now required is a decisive step to protect consumers, especially the youngest among them.
