'This is your last chance': SC ultimatum to govt over front pack warning labels

The Supreme Court of India has issued a stern ultimatum to the central government, giving it two weeks to decide on implementing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat. In a sharp rebuke of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the court emphasized the urgency of protecting public health, particularly the well-being of children, and warned that further delays could lead to direct judicial intervention. A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made it clear that the government must act swiftly, stating, "This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment." During the hearing, the court scrutinized the government's repeated hesitations in adopting the proposed labeling system. It questioned why the government seemed unwilling to prioritize public health concerns, asking, "Why? You don't want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?" The bench highlighted that the issue was not about banning specific foods but ensuring that consumers, especially vulnerable groups, had access to clear and immediate nutritional information before making a purchase. Representing the government, additional solicitor general Brijender Chahar argued that traditional Indian food items, such as namkeen, might end up bearing red warning labels due to their higher fat or salt content. He pointed out that even common ingredients like two eggs could surpass the prescribed daily fat limits. Chahar also contended that international nutritional standards might not align with Indian dietary habits and could negatively impact micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), which rely heavily on traditional foods. However, the court dismissed these arguments, emphasizing that consumers already understand the presence of sugar, fat, and carbohydrates in packaged foods. Front-of-pack warning labels, the bench stated, would serve as a more straightforward and effective means of conveying nutritional risks. The judges also refuted claims that such labels would harm manufacturers, asserting that the final decision to purchase a product would always rest with the consumer. The discussion centered around a public interest litigation filed by non-profits 3S and Our Health, which seeks mandatory warning labels on packaged foods indicating high levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. The court reiterated that its focus was not on restricting any particular food item but on promoting informed choices among consumers. Justice Pardiwala noted that not everyone could afford expensive products like dry fruits, and many children consume snacks like Kurkure, underscoring the importance of transparency in nutrition information. The bench also took issue with the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, which appeared to reflect resistance to the court's previous recommendations. The judges questioned whether the regulator was influenced by pressure from food manufacturers, stating, "There is immense pressure at the end of all these corporate houses on you. And you are succumbing to that pressure!" The court referenced its earlier order dated February 10, 2026, where it had previously addressed the issue and outlined its expectations for FSSAI. It criticized the government's stance that India could not easily adopt international standards, asking, "Should India remain an undeveloped country?" The bench stressed that the nation must demonstrate its commitment to public health, particularly for children, and that the world should recognize India's concern for its citizens' well-being. The government's reluctance to implement the warning labels has been a recurring point of contention. In its August 4 order, the court expressed dissatisfaction with FSSAI's compliance and explicitly requested the authority to consider front-of-package labeling, noting that such systems are widely used internationally. The court directed FSSAI to respond within four weeks, but progress has since stalled. As the deadline approaches, the government faces mounting pressure to finalize its position on the proposed labeling system. The Supreme Court's firm stance underscores the gravity of the public health issue and signals a potential shift toward stricter regulatory measures if the government fails to comply with the court's directive.