Front-of-Pack Labelling in India: Supreme Court Examines FSSAI’s Proposed Framework

India’s proposed front-of-pack labelling framework for packaged foods is under renewed judicial scrutiny. In September 2026, the Supreme Court examined the food regulator’s proposal for warnings on products containing specified levels of sugar, salt and fat, and sought clarification on the proposed thresholds, design and implementation. While the objective is to make nutritional information more accessible, the final requirements and their practical implications for food businesses remain uncertain.

Most packaged foods already carry a nutrition table, usually on the back of the pack. For consumers, interpreting these figures may not always be straightforward. Front-of-pack labelling (FoPL) seeks to supplement this information with a more visible indication of specified nutrient levels. Its design and scope, however, remain matters for regulatory determination, including how the information should be communicated across different categories of packaged foods.

In its order dated 10 September 2026 in 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India[1], the Supreme Court (Court) considered the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) proposal for a red, hexagonal warning label. The Court identified aspects requiring clarification and sought a further response from FSSAI.

What did the Court consider?

The case began as a public interest petition seeking directions for front-of-pack warning labels on packaged foods. In earlier proceedings, the Court had linked the issue to the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State’s public-health responsibility under Article 47. It also noted the concerns around excessive consumption of foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), and ultra-processed foods, particularly in relation to children.

Following the Court’s earlier order of 13 August 2026, FSSAI filed an affidavit describing a proposed warning system. It suggested a red hexagon carrying words such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and, where relevant, “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”. The proposed warning would appear in a font one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack.

FSSAI proposed a phased approach to this. Phase I would cover products high in two or more of the specified nutrients, as well as specified sweetened beverages. Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any one of those nutrients. Single-ingredient products and certain foods which were inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt—such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey—were proposed to be exempt, subject to other applicable labelling requirements. The Court acknowledged that FSSAI made progress, but considered the proposal incomplete in several important respects.

The questions that remain open

The Court questioned the rationale of waiting until a product is high in two or more nutrients before giving it a warning. In considering the submissions before it, the Court noted concerns about treating these nutrients together, as excessive sugar, salt and saturated fat can have different health implications.

The proposal did not set a clear timeline between Phase I and Phase II. The Court was concerned that, without a defined date, the second phase could be delayed indefinitely. The Court called for a clearly defined transition timeline, while also considering the need for industry preparedness.

The Court raised practical questions about the label itself. How large should the red hexagon be? Should its size depend on the size of the pack? Will the wording be readable on small packaging? The proposal to use a font only one point larger than the back-of-pack nutrition table may not, by itself, guarantee that the warning is prominent and easy to read.

The Court also raised questions about whether thresholds should be based on added sugar and added fat alone, or whether total sugar and total fat should be considered. It sought further clarity on the categories of sweetened beverages to be covered and on how the design could communicate risk without confusing consumers.

The Court questioned whether a red warning could be confused with the red symbol used to identify non-vegetarian food in India. It also asked whether each nutrient should have its own hexagon, rather than combining multiple warnings into one label, and whether pictorial symbols should accompany the words so that the warning works across different languages and literacy levels. These observations highlight the importance of legibility and consumer comprehension in any final design.

The Court also noted that thresholds resulting in warnings on most packaged foods could make it harder for consumers to distinguish between products with different levels of the nutrients concerned. It raised questions about the treatment of different food categories and levels of processing. These considerations will also be relevant to the scope and design of the final framework.

The Court posed thirteen questions to FSSAI, directed a response by affidavit within ten days and listed the matter for 28 September 2026. Ahead of the hearing, FSSAI indicated that it was willing to move to a single-phase roll-out instead of the earlier two-phase proposal. It sought four months to finalise draft regulations and proposed a 365-day voluntary compliance period for food business operators. On 28 September 2026, arguments concluded and the Supreme Court reserved judgment.[2] The framework, including its implementation timeline, therefore remains subject to the Court’s decision and the subsequent regulatory process.

What could this mean for major food businesses?

The practical impact will depend on the final thresholds, product exemptions, pack-size rules and implementation dates. It would be premature to say that every product sold by a particular company will need a warning. A practical starting point is to review product categories and existing labelling systems.

Food businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions may already be familiar with different front-of-pack labelling approaches, including traffic-light systems, nutrient scoring models and warning symbols^[3]. This experience may assist in assessing the operational requirements, from compiling nutrition data and reviewing claims to coordinating artwork and managing market-specific packaging.

Front-of-Pack labelling scheme vis-à-vis other jurisdictions

Chile’s Ministry of Health explains that black warning seals marked “HIGH IN” help consumers identify packaged foods that exceed limits for nutrients such as sodium, sugars, saturated fat or calories. The system is intended to provide an at-a-glance indication of specified nutrient levels. The UK uses a different, largely voluntary traffic-light approach on many products, with colour-coded nutrient information. These examples illustrate differing approaches, rather than a single model for India.

From Regulatory Change to Compliance Action

The challenge with regulatory developments such as front-of-pack labelling is not simply identifying that a regulatory change has occurred. Businesses must determine whether it applies to them, what obligations it creates, who is responsible for them, when action is required and what evidence will demonstrate compliance.

This becomes particularly important for large organisations managing multiple products, entities, locations and regulatory requirements.

Komrisk helps organisations centralise their compliance obligations, assign responsibility, track deadlines and maintain compliance evidence in one platform. Its AI capabilities can further support compliance teams through Kompare, which verifies uploaded compliance proofs against the relevant compliance requirement and past data, helping reviewers identify incorrect, blank or irrelevant documents.

For organisations looking to connect compliance management with risk management, RegIQ can assess compliance risks against the organisation’s own risk parameters and frameworks.

In the context of evolving requirements such as the proposed FoPL framework, this provides a way to move from simply monitoring regulatory change to operationalising the resulting compliance requirements.

Explore Komrisk →
https://lexplosion.in/compliance-management-software/

What should food businesses do now?

While FSSAI’s affidavit stated that the proposal would be notified through amendments to the relevant regulations following the prescribed process, some packaged food companies in India have already introduced forms of front-of-pack nutrition information voluntarily^[4].

While the final requirements are awaited, food businesses may consider the following preparatory steps without prematurely redesigning packaging:

• Categorise products and compile reliable data for energy, added and total sugars, saturated and total fat, and salt/sodium.
• Assess the potential implications of the thresholds discussed in the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024[5], recognising that these guidelines do not themselves prescribe binding front-of-pack labelling thresholds and that the final legal criteria may differ.
• Identify products that may require artwork changes, especially small packs and products sold in several SKUs.
• Consider a packaging-change plan that accounts for artwork approval, printing lead times, existing packaging inventory and any transition period in the final notification.
• Monitor the outcome of the proceedings and any subsequent FSSAI amendment, including exemptions, label dimensions, calculation methodology, enforcement dates and any separate rules for beverages.

The final shape of India’s front-of-pack labelling regime remains uncertain. Much will depend on how FSSAI addresses the questions raised by the Supreme Court, particularly regarding nutrient thresholds, product classifications, label design and implementation timelines.

For food businesses, the immediate priority is to assess the potential implications across their product portfolios and remain prepared for changes to the existing framework. Clear standards and a predictable implementation schedule will be important for compliance planning and meaningful consumer communication.

[1] W.P.(C) No. 437/2024

[2] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/ngo-says-fssai-dragging-feet-on-food-warning-labels-files-plea/articleshow/134876187.cms

[3] https://hive.unilever.com/files/nutrient-profiling-models.pdf

[4] https://www.angelone.in/news/stocks/itc-nestle-start-adding-front-pack-food-labels-as-fssai-rules-remain-pending

[5] https://nin.res.in/dietaryguidelines/pdfjs/locale/DGI_2024.pdf

Author: Pragya Saraf

Co-Author: Amiya Mukherjee

This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. Despite our efforts to maintain accuracy, we do not make representations, warranties or undertakings regarding the quality, completeness or reliability of the content.  This content, including the design, text, graphics, their selection and arrangement, is Copyright 2026, Lexplosion Solutions Private Limited or its licensors. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, and all moral rights are asserted and reserved.

For any clarifications, please reach out to us at 91-33-40618083 or inquiries@lexplosion.in. Refer to our privacy policy by clicking here.