'Should India Remain Underdeveloped?' : Supreme Court Slams Union's Opposition To Adopt Global Norms On Food Package Labelling
"The World should know that India is very much concerned about the overall health of its citizens, more particularly the growing children," the Court said.
The Supreme Court recently disapproved of the Union's stand that it can't follow international standards when it comes to issuing interpretative warnings of high sugar, sodium or fat content on packaged food items. The Court questioned if India should remain underdeveloped, ignoring that obesity remains a significant public health concern.
The observations were made in the context of the failure of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement the Front-of-Package labelling (FOPL), a standard adopted at the international level.
It may be recalled that the Court on February 10 observed that FSSAI failed to file a satisfactory affidavit on mandatory compliance with FOPL. It directed them to file another compliance report, and the matter was then taken up on August 13 before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran. However, the Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar(for FSSAI) informed the bench that it can't comply with the FOPL as Indian dietary standards are different from those followed internationally.
This didn't sit well with the Court, which disapproved of the Union's stand that India can't match the standards of developed countries. The Court observed: "We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says that it is not possible to match with international standards, more particularly, developed countries. Should India remain as an underdeveloped country? That's the question we are putting forward for the Union to consider. The World should know that India is very much concerned about the overall health of its citizens, more particularly the growing children."
It reiterated that the matter concerns the health of the citizens, more particularly growing children whose health can't be compromised. Justice Pardiwala particularly pointed out that young children are exposed to packaged items which further deteriorate their health.
It referred to UNICEF's Child Nutrition Report, 2025, as per which the percentage of overweight school-age children and adolescents increased from 2% to 10% between 2002 and 2022. The report notes that nearly 80% of what is available in the vicnity of the school are packaged items.
Along with this, it also referred to the Economic Survey 2025-25, which records that India's ultra-processed foods market has increased more than 150% from 2009 to 2023.
Remarking that obesity continues to be a public health challenge in India, the Court said: "The recent NFHS data speak for themselves. It is needless to mention that it is caused by unhealthy diet and lifestyle, including consumption of processed foods leading to higher risk of diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension."
It pointed out the impact of foods high in sugar, fat, and sodium on children as well as adults and added: "All that we would say is that a balanced nutrient rich diet is crucial for a child's growth, development and overall well-being. It does not merely affect a person's physical health, it also affects how a person feels, performs and behaves."
The bench stated that refined sugar, refined flour, and trans-fats not only heighten the risk of heart diseases, obesity and hyperactivity in children, it equally contributes to poor digestion, unhealthy weight gain and an increase in bad cholesterol.
It is in this context, the Court urged that FOPL is an assistive device which allows consumers to make informed choices because it places relevant and readily available nutrition information on the packaging.
"What we are trying to convey is that the environment surrounding children and us is quietly dictating our habits. A standard labelling format would reduce confusion and make it easier for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions, and FOPL could educate consumers. Awareness from FOPL would transform a label into a functional tool. Thus, the value of FOPL lies not merely in disclosure but in clarity, the precise difference between a consumer being told and a consumer being informed."
India can't remain underdeveloped
Since the Union and FSSAI argued that India can't follow the international regime on food labelling, the bench took examples from Chile, Israel and Canada. It stated that the Chilean government, after recognising the need to address the rising rate of childhood overweight and obesity, undertook measures to change food labelling.
Chilean government in 2016 introduced a food product labelling it as "high sugar content" if it contained more than 22.5g of sugar per 100 gm. Eventually, this limited lowered to 10g per 100 g. This resulted in a substantial reduction in the consumer's appetite.
Similarly, the Court stated that Canada introduced changes in 202 in the form of Front of Package Nutrition symbols.
The objective of stating these examples, the Court remarked, was to mention that apart from developed countries, even developing countries are adopting international standards of packaging.
"A positive step in that direction would further accelerate our country's endeavour to be fully developed, by bringing awareness to the public in general of the ill effects, emanating even from 'indigenous foods', despite our conviction that the 'indigenous foods' coming from the diverse cultures in this country were never intended to be packaged."
Final directions
The Court has asked the FSSAI to consult with the experts on whether they want to follow coloured indicators, interpretive words, numbers, letters, symbols, or numerical information on the FOPL. But it directed that the Union will have to consider the issue from the perspective of Article 21, which encompasses the right to health and Article 47, which casts a duty on the State to improve public health.
"We are of the considered view that the Union would not face any difficulty in implementing changes as regards FOPL since it is already in its notice as is evident from the aforementioned Economic Survey suggestions...If the Union does it on its own, well and good, otherwise we shall proceed to pass further directions."
Two weeks further time has been granted by the Court for the Union to reconsider its position, and interact with the Expert Committee it constituted in the main matter.
Also from the hearing - Supreme Court Slams FSSAI For Opposing Warning Labels For High-Fat, Sugar & Salt Foods, Asks If It's Due To Industry Pressure
Case Details: 3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR|15 MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 806
Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi and Ms. Priyanka Parmar
For the Respondents/FSSAI: Mr. Brijender Chahar, ASG