Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (“FOPNL”) is at the centre of the proceedings in 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr., 2026 INSC 988 (“3S Case”), where the Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has repeatedly questioned the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) on the adequacy and visibility of nutritional disclosures on packaged food products. In doing so, the Court has made its position absolutely clear: food safety, particularly the health of children, is a matter of national interest.
Unlike the detailed nutrition panel on the reverse of a package, FOPNL is intended to communicate essential nutritional information at the point of purchase. The immediate dispute is therefore no longer whether India requires FOPNL, but what the label must say, how prominently it must say it, and whether it should merely inform consumers or specifically warn them.
From Draft Rules to Courtroom Scrutiny
FSSAI first proposed a dedicated front-of-pack system through the draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022 (“2022 Draft Regulations”), issued on September 13, 2022. The 2022 Draft Regulations proposed an Indian Nutrition Rating (“INR”) ranging from half a star to five stars.
The petitioner instituted W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2024 under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking mandatory front-of-package warnings for foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat. On April 9, 2025, the Court disposed of the writ petition after directing the Expert Committee to submit its recommendations within three months so that the proposed amendments could be carried forward. In absence of any development, the proceedings returned through Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 of 2025. By 2026[1], the Court was no longer merely monitoring the regulatory process; it was testing the scientific and practical foundations of the regime itself.
The 2026 Shift: From Stars to Warnings
In January 2026, FSSAI informed the Court that the Expert Committee had been unable to reach consensus on the INR and that further research, product mapping and consultations were required. On August 13, 2026, the Court responded more firmly. It connected FOPNL with the right to health under Article 21 and the State's duty to improve public health under Article 47, rejected regulatory delay as an adequate answer, and directed the Union of India and FSSAI to place a concrete proposal before it.
FSSAI's affidavit dated August 28, 2026, marked a decisive departure from the star-rating model. It proposed a red hexagonal[2] warning label carrying declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. The proposed regime would operate in two stages: Phase I would cover products exceeding the prescribed thresholds for at least two nutrients of concern and specified sweetened beverages, while Phase II would extend the warning to products exceeding the threshold for any one nutrient. Single-ingredient foods and products inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt, including ghee, edible oil, jaggery, honey, etc., were proposed to be exempted. The thresholds would draw from the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research–National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN) (“2024 Guidelines”).
The Court acknowledged that FSSAI had made “significant progress” but did not accept the proposal at face value. Its order dated September 10, 2026, subjected the architecture of the proposal to granular scrutiny and required FSSAI to explain thirteen unresolved issues within ten days (“September 10 Order”)[3]. Pertinently, the matter is listed on September 28, 2026, for further hearing.
The Court, inter alia, has put forth following queries before FSSAI: Why should Phase I apply only when two or more nutrients cross the threshold, when excess sugar, salt and fat may each cause harm independently? How large should the warning be, where should it appear, and should separate pictorial hexagons be used for each nutrient to address India's varied languages and literacy levels? Could reformulation reduce sugar, salt or fat while increasing preservatives, emulsifiers or other additives? How will nutritional literacy and interpretation of FOPNL be incorporated into school curriculum and public initiatives? |
The order also questions whether red is an appropriate colour when Indian consumers commonly associate red with the non-vegetarian symbol. It presses FSSAI to identify the “specified sweetened beverages” proposed to be covered in Phase I, explain the dimensions and placement of the hexagon, and justify the use of a single composite label instead of separate warnings for each nutrient. It seems that the Court's concern is not cosmetic in nature. A warning that is scientifically uncertain, visually obscure or indefinitely phased may comply on paper without materially improving consumer choice.
International Practices[4]
The Court has looked into international practice not to prescribe a ready-made answer, but to frame the choices before FSSAI. The models fall broadly into two groups: summary systems that rate the product as a whole, and nutrient-specific systems that identify particular risks.
Singapore | Australia and New Zealand | United Kingdom |
Nutri-Grade and Nutri-Score use graded, letter-based summaries. | The Health Star Rating assigns an overall nutritional score and informed the 2022 Draft Regulations. | The voluntary traffic-light label presents colour-coded nutrient data with reference-intake percentages. |
Warning Label or Star Rating?
A 2023 ICMR-NIN study[5] involving over 3,000 participants found that summary formats such as Nutri-Score were easier to understand and more useful for comparison, while warning labels were more effective in discouraging the purchase of unhealthy foods. The study also identified a “health halo” risk: an overall positive score may make a product appear healthier even when a particular nutrient remains high.
That trade-off now sits at the heart of the regulatory choice. A summary rating tells a consumer which product appears better overall; a warning label tells the consumer what is wrong with a particular product. FSSAI's move from the INR to a hexagonal warning suggests a shift from comparison towards prevention. The Court's order, however, makes clear that the effectiveness of a warning depends on far more than its shape.
Industry and Public-Health Concerns
Public-health groups argue that Phase I is too permissive because a product high in only one nutrient may escape a warning. They also question the proposed exemptions and the focus on “added” rather than total nutrients. Industry stakeholders approach the issue from the opposite direction: they contend that low thresholds calculated per 100 grams, rather than by a realistic serving size, may place products such as pickles, sauces, traditional sweets and namkeen under broad warnings that do not reflect ordinary consumption[6].
The September 10 Order goes beyond this familiar divide. It further asks whether the same framework should apply to minimally processed foods and ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Whether separate thresholds are needed for different levels of processing, and whether reformulation may simply substitute nutrients of concern with artificial additives. These aforesaid issues go beyond the wording of the label. They will shape the final rules and the compliance requirements for food businesses.
India's FOPNL debate has reached a point where delay can no longer be disguised as consultation. FSSAI has accepted the need for an interpretive front-of-pack device and has moved from a positive star rating to a warning model. The question now is whether the final regime will be scientifically coherent, visually unmistakable and capable of being enforced across product categories and sales channels.
For the food industry, the eventual regulation may require more than a packaging change. Thresholds and exemptions could drive product reformulation, portfolio review, advertising strategy, digital-display practices and fresh substantiation of nutrition claims. For consumers, the value of the regime will turn on whether the warning can be understood in seconds, not explained after purchase.
The 3S Case has therefore shifted the debate from whether FOPNL should exist to whether it will work. The Court has put FSSAI's proposal through a demanding test: a label must not merely be present on the pack; it must be scientifically defensible, sufficiently prominent and genuinely capable of warning the consumer. FSSAI's response, and the framework that follows, will show whether India is adopting a meaningful public-health intervention or only another declaration on an already crowded label.
Authors; Rajarshi Chakrabarti (Senior Partner), Aakash Karekar (Senior Associate) and Shreyansh Raj (Associate). Views are personal.