The Supreme Court on Thursday put the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on notice over the delay in introducing prominent health warnings on packaged foods containing high amounts of sugar, salt and saturated fat.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran expressed strong concern during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation seeking clearer warnings for consumers.

The court questioned why its earlier directions had not been implemented and sought to know what action the government had taken so far.

SC QUESTIONS FSSAI'S STAND

The issue came up after the petitioner's lawyer referred to the proceedings of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7.

According to the submissions before the court, FSSAI had pointed to opposition from the food industry to front-of-pack warning labels. Instead, the regulator had proposed displaying information on the recommended daily intake of added sugar, salt and saturated fats in a tabular format.

The petitioner argued that this approach did not adequately reflect evidence submitted by civil society groups supporting warning labels as a means of helping consumers identify products containing excessive quantities of these ingredients.

The court questioned the government's position and asked whether corporate interests were influencing the decision-making process.

The bench stressed that the issue directly concerns public health, particularly the health of children, and said such considerations should take precedence.

'CONSUMERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW'

The judges emphasised that warning labels are intended to provide information rather than prevent companies from selling their products.

The court observed that manufacturers may not favour a system that prominently highlights potentially unhealthy ingredients, but consumers should nevertheless have the information needed to make their own choices.

The bench made it clear that the presence of a warning would not automatically mean that a product could not be sold.

Instead, the objective would be to ensure that consumers understand what they are buying before making a decision.

CENTRE RAISES CONCERNS OVER INDIAN FOODS

Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar referred to traditional Indian foods while explaining the government's concerns.

He argued that applying standards developed in countries where packaged foods may contain different levels of salt, sugar and fat could create difficulties in the Indian context.

He cited products such as namkeen as examples that could potentially receive prominent warning symbols under a stricter system.

The argument did not convince the bench.

The judges questioned whether India should avoid stronger health standards simply because some other countries have different food compositions.

COURT WARNS IT MAY STEP IN

The bench repeatedly sought clarity on whether the government intended to implement the directions on its own.

When the Centre sought time to explain its proposed course of action, the judges made it clear that the earlier directions had to be followed.

The court has now given the government two weeks to take the necessary steps.

The bench warned that if the authorities fail to act, the court itself could issue further directions.

The larger issue before the court is therefore no longer simply about packaging design. It concerns how prominently consumers should be informed about potentially excessive levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat in packaged food — and whether India's regulatory framework should provide stronger protection, particularly for children.