The Supreme Court on September 10, 2026, flagged multiple gaps in the FSSAI’s proposal for introducing hexagonal warning labels on packaged food products high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat, directing the food regulator to submit detailed clarifications within ten days.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, hearing the public interest litigation titled 3S And Our Health Society v. Union of India & Anr., observed that while significant progress had been made since the Court’s previous order, several aspects of the FSSAI’s affidavit dated August 28 remained unclear and required further explanation.
The Bench questioned the basis for dividing the implementation into two phases, under which the first phase would apply only to products high in at least two of the specified nutrients — added sugar, added saturated fat, and salt — and certain sweetened beverages, with the second phase covering products high in any one of these nutrients. The Court noted that each of these nutrients — sugar, salt, and saturated fat — could independently pose health risks and sought a fixed timeline between the phases, warning that without such a timeline, the second phase could be indefinitely postponed.
The Court stated that considerations such as consumer acceptability and the time required by industry for reformulation could not, by themselves, justify uncertainty over the timing of the second phase.
Further, the Bench sought clarification on the thresholds proposed under the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines 2024, asking the FSSAI to explain the distinction between different categories of processed food and the specific thresholds applicable to ‘specified sweetened beverages’.
On the design of the labels, the Court raised concerns about the size, placement, and background of the red hexagonal labels, noting that the FSSAI had not specified the dimensions of the hexagon or explained how these would be measured in relation to the package. It also asked whether the red colour could confuse consumers who associate red symbols with non-vegetarian food products.
The Bench questioned whether separate hexagonal labels should be used for each nutrient instead of a single composite label stating ‘HIGH FAT’, ‘HIGH SUGAR’, ‘HIGH SALT’, and, where applicable, ‘HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE’. It also observed that word-only warnings may not adequately reach consumers with varying literacy and language levels, and directed the FSSAI to consider combining textual warnings with pictorial representations.
Additional queries included whether the labels should refer to added sugar and fat or total sugar and saturated fat, and whether reducing these nutrients might lead manufacturers to increase the use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers. The Court also sought clarity on whether the warnings should be mandatory from the outset or whether any voluntary period would be subject to a reasonable time limit.
The Union government was asked to explain the steps being taken to improve nutritional literacy among schoolchildren through curricula, workshops, and other initiatives.
The Bench directed the FSSAI to revisit its proposal, address all the issues raised, and file a detailed response within ten days. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 28, 2026.
The petitioner, 3S & Our Health Society, is represented by Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi.