Supreme Court Issues Final Warning to FSSAI, Sets Hard Deadline for Food Labelling Rules

New Delhi – In a move underscoring judicial impatience with regulatory delays, the Supreme Court of India has granted a "final" three-month extension to an expert committee under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to submit its pivotal recommendations on mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL). The court's stern warning signals a potential flashpoint in the long-running legal and public health battle over transparent food labelling.

A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan , while acceding to the FSSAI's request for additional time, made it unequivocally clear that its patience has run thin. “We grant further time of three months for one last time, failing which we will take appropriate steps as per law,” the bench cautioned, explicitly stating that a failure to meet this new deadline could trigger contempt of court proceedings.

The case, rooted in a 2024 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO 3S and Our Health Society, centres on the protracted delay in implementing clear and effective warning labels on packaged foods high in salt, sugar, and saturated fats—key contributors to India's growing crisis of non-communicable diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular ailments.

The Core of the Legal Dispute: Consultation vs. Procrastination

At the heart of the matter is the FSSAI's 2022 draft amendment to the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. This proposal introduced the Indian Nutritional Rating (INR), a star-rating system intended to score a product's overall healthfulness by balancing positive nutrients against negative ones.

The FSSAI justified its latest request for an extension, its second this year, by citing the necessity of extensive, pan-India consultations. The authority informed the court that its expert committee is actively gathering feedback from a wide array of grassroots stakeholders, including micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), self-help groups, consumer bodies, and regional food business operators. Consultations have already been held in major cities like Delhi, Goa, Hyderabad, and Kolkata. FSSAI argued that such "wider and inclusive consultations" are crucial for developing a robust policy that impacts the entire food ecosystem, from production to consumption.

However, this justification was sharply contested by the petitioner. Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi , representing 3S and Our Health Society, characterised the ongoing consultations as a "stalling tactic." He argued that the FSSAI was deliberately dragging its feet on a critical public health issue. Dwivedi pointed out that the expert committee had not convened even once during the initial three-month period granted by the court in April 2024.

This allegation paints a picture of "policy paralysis," an argument central to the petitioner's PIL, which contends that the government's inaction in the face of escalating health concerns is a dereliction of its duty.

A Clash of Labelling Philosophies: Star Ratings vs. Stark Warnings

Beyond the issue of procedural delays, the case highlights a fundamental disagreement over the most effective form of consumer information. The legal and policy debate revolves around two competing models:

1. The Indian Nutritional Rating (INR) System: Supported by the government and some industry players, this "summary rating" system provides a single star-based score (e.g., 1 to 5 stars). The Centre has defended it in court as a "balanced approach" that informs consumers of a food item’s overall health profile, considering both its positive and negative ingredients.

2. Direct Warning Labels: Advocated by the petitioner and numerous public health experts, this model involves clear, unambiguous warnings on the front of the pack, explicitly stating if a product is "High in Sugar," "High in Salt," or "High in Saturated Fat."

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Dwivedi , was scathing in his criticism of the INR system, arguing that it “obscures the harmful content of packaged foods and fails to offer transparent information to consumers.” The core legal argument is that a star rating can be misleading; a product high in sugar could still receive a seemingly positive rating due to the presence of other "healthy" ingredients like whole grains, thereby confusing consumers about the specific risks. This, the petitioner argues, undermines the consumer's right to make an informed choice, a right intrinsically linked to the fundamental right to health.

Citing WHO reports on the efficacy of direct warning labels in other jurisdictions, the petitioner has pushed for a system that does not require interpretation but instead provides an immediate, cautionary message.

Judicial Intervention and the Threat of Contempt

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant one final extension, while appearing to be a concession, is legally significant for its attached ultimatum. By explicitly mentioning the possibility of contempt proceedings, the bench has elevated the matter from a standard administrative review to an issue of judicial authority. This serves as a powerful message not only to the FSSAI but to all regulatory bodies that judicial deadlines are not mere suggestions.

The bench's remark, “It is alright as long as they are looking into the matter,” indicates a willingness to respect the administrative process, but only up to a point. The court has effectively placed the onus squarely on the FSSAI to demonstrate tangible progress and produce a conclusive report within the stipulated timeframe.

The final report from the expert committee, now due in three months, will be a critical document. It must address the analysis of over 14,000 public responses to the 2022 draft regulation and incorporate the feedback from the ongoing nationwide consultations. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for India's massive packaged food industry, public health policy, and the legal framework governing consumer rights and food safety. The legal and corporate sectors will be watching closely as the clock now ticks on the FSSAI's "one last time" opportunity.