3S And Our Health Society vs Union Of India
- Court
- Supreme Court
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 988
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Miscellaneous Application No. 1177 Of 2025
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 437 Of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
3S AND OUR HEALTH SOCIETY …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. By our order dated 13.08.2026, we had highlighted that urgent and
significant headway on the implementation of Front-of-Package
Labelling (“ FoPL ”) on packaged foods was needed and that
inspiration may be drawn from the International Standards of
Packaging to safeguard the collective health and well-being of all
persons, especially growing children in India. We had also
emphasized on the obvious, scientifically substantiated and
commonly known nexus between various health issues like obesity,
diabetes, heart disease, hypertension etc., and foods that are
categorized as High in Fat, Sugar or Salt (“ HFSS ”) or Ultra-Processed
Signature Not Verified
Foods (“ UPF ”) which are available in the market. FoPL would make
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.09.10
22:17:38 IST
Reason:
great strides in facilitating informed decision making on the part of
Page 1 of 31
the consumers during purchase and facilitate product reformulation
in the long run, thus contributing to healthier food environments. We
had engaged in an elaborate dialogue with a view to persuade the
Union of India and the FSSAI to initiate prompt and meaningful
action, and to keep us informed on how and in what manner they
wished to proceed.
2. In that regard, in Paras 15 to 22 respectively of our previous order,
we had observed thus:
“ 15. The Union in consultation with the experts may arrive
at the decision on visual appearance (coloured indicators,
interpretive words, numbers, letters or symbols, numerical
information, percentage) of the FOPL.
16. We may look at the aforesaid from one another angle. The
right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to health.
When the Constitution guarantees this right, it casts a
corresponding duty on the State to not only refrain from actions
that impair the health but also to take affirmative steps to protect
it. Furthermore, Article 47 of the Constitution casts a duty on
the State to improve public health as its primary duty.
17. We are of the considered view that the Union would not
face any difficulty in implementing changes as regards FOPL
since it is already in its notice as is evident from the
aforementioned Economic Survey suggestions.
18. We still impress upon the Union, more particularly, the
Committee to seriously consider our suggestions referred to
above and take an appropriate decision at the earliest.
19. If the Union does it on its own, well and good, otherwise
we shall proceed to pass further directions.
20. We grant two weeks’ time to place the final decision on
record.
21. We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says
that it is not possible to match with international standards,
more particularly, developed countries. Should India remain as
Page 2 of 31
an underdeveloped country? That’s the question we are putting
forward for the Union to consider.
22. The World should know that India is very much
concerned about the overall health of its citizens, more
particularly the growing children. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
3. In response, an affidavit dated 28.08.2026 has been filed by the
FSSAI. The same is reproduced thus:
“4. The Respondent by way of the present Affidavit seeks to
state the compliance of the directions passed by this Hon'ble
Court vide Order dated 13.08.2026 as under:
i. In this regard, FSSAI has prepared a proposal for providing
information relating to added sugar, added fat and salt in
pictorial form on the Front-of-Pack (FoP). The proposal is
intended to provide a simple, prominent and easily
comprehensible warning to consumers regarding food
products which are high in specified nutrients of concern.
ii. It is proposed to provide a prominent Front-of-Pack warning
label in a red- coloured hexagonal shape for food products
which are high in any two or more of the following nutrients
of concern, namely added saturated fat, added sugar and salt,
based on the thresholds specified under the Dietary
Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NiN. The
warning label shall indicate the applicable declaration(s) such
as “HIGH FAT”, "HIGH SUGAR", "HIGH SALT" and/or
“HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE” as the case may be,
to enable consumers to readily identify products high in the
specified nutrients.
iii. The warning shall be displayed in a font size one point
larger than that used in the nutrition information table on
the back of the pack.
iv. The following categories are proposed to be exempted from
the above Front-of-Pack warning requirement:
a. single-ingredient food products; and
Page 3 of 31
b. food products which are inherently rich in fat, sugar or
salt, such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and
honey, subject to the applicability of other requirements
under the food safety and labelling regulations.
v. It is further proposed that FoPNL be implemented in phases
to facilitate consumer acceptability and provide industry
adequate time for reformulation.
Phase I would cover products high in two or more specified
nutrients- added fat, added sugar and salt — and specified
sweetened beverages.
Phase II would extend the warning to products high in any
one of these nutrients.
The proposed approach is intended to address the need for
an effective and consumer-friendly FoP labelling
mechanism and to facilitate informed food choices,
particularly in relation to children and other vulnerable
group of the population.
5. That for the purposes of this regulation, a food product shall
be considered High in Fat, Sugar and/or Salt (HFSS) where,
based on the nutrient-of-concern threshold specified under the
Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN, the
food product is high in any two or more of the following
nutrients: a) added fat; b) added sugar and salt.
This information shall be presented in a ‘red hexagon’ at front-
of-pack for food products in the prescribed format:
HIGH FAT
HIGH SALT
HIGH SUGAR
For examples:
Products containing High Fat and High Salt For Products containing High Salt and High Sugar
HIGH SALT
HIGH FAT
HIGH SUGAR
HIGH SALT
Page 4 of 31
For Products containing High Fat and High Sugar Sweetened Beverages
HIGHLY
HIGH FAT
SWEETENED
HIGH SUGAR
BEVERAGE
The above information shall be provided in a font size that is one
point larger than the font used for the nutritional information
table on the back of the pack.
6. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent humbly states that
the Respondent is in due compliance of the directions of the
Order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Hon’ble Court and
undertakes adherence in the future. It is pertinent to mention
that the same will be notified by way of an amendment in the
respective regulations by following prescribed procedure.”
(Emphasis supplied)
4. As per the aforesaid affidavit, the FSSAI has prepared a proposal
for providing interpretive label(s) of the nutrients-of-concern (fat,
sugar and salt) at the front of the pack in a pictorial form i.e., as a
‘red hexagon’. They are of the view that this choice of label would
constitute a “ simple, prominent and easily comprehensible warning to
consumers regarding food products which are high in specified nutrients
of concern ”.
5. We acknowledge that significant progress has been made by the
FSSAI on the matter since the date of the last hearing. However, we
would be remiss not to point out that several aspects or specificities
anchoring the practical implementation of the FSSAI’s proposal still
remain ambiguous and need further clarification.
Page 5 of 31
A. The phased strategy
6. The FSSAI’s affidavit states that the FoPL is intended to be
implemented in phases to facilitate both “ consumer acceptability ” and
“ provide the industry adequate time for reformulation ”. With that aim,
Phase I is set to only cover products which are high in two or more of
the specified nutrients and specified sweetened beverages. Whereas
Phase II is set to extend the label to products which are high in any
one of these nutrients.
(i) The basis on which the two phases are separated
7. First, we must address ourselves on the basis which separates the
two phases. It is said that Phase I would provide the red hexagonal
FoPL for products either (i) High in Fat, High in Sugar and High in
Salt; (ii) High in fat and High in Salt ; (iii) High in Salt and High in
Sugar; (iv) High in Fat and High in Sugar; or (v) specific sweetened
beverages. Thereafter, Phase II would extend the individual red
hexagonal FoPL for products either (i) High in Fat; (ii) High in
Sugar; or (iii) High in Salt, such that products which exceed the
prescribed levels of even one specified nutrient-of-concern would
fall within the FoPL system.
8. The petitioner, through their reply dated 03.09.2026 to the affidavit
filed by the FSSAI would submit that the “ two or more threshold ”, is
in substance, a redefinition of what ‘High in Fat, Sugar and/or Salt’
would mean. The use of the words and/or reflecti a disjunctive
scientific understanding. According to them, excess sugar, excess
salt and excess saturated fat are independently harmful and act
Page 6 of 31
through different pathways. More specifically, excess sugar is
independently linked to diabetes and metabolic disease, excess salt
to hypertension; and excess saturated fat independently to
cardiovascular disease and adverse cholesterol. Therefore, the
petitioner is of the view that requiring the presence of high levels of
two or more nutrients-of-concern as a triggering criteria is not
backed by science and severely narrows down the products which
would be covered in Phase I.
9. We have also perused the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024
(hereinafter, the “ 2024 Guidelines ”) and the Draft Food Safety and
Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022
(hereinafter, the “ 2022 Draft Regulations ”) respectively to obtain
some clarity on the definition of HFSS foods. There seems to be
some disparity in approach. While the 2024 Guidelines define HFSS
foods as “ those foods that are prepared with excessive cooking oils/fats or
more added sugar and salt ”, the 2022 Draft Regulations have defined
them as “ processed food product which has high levels of saturated fat or
total sugar or sodium ”. The use of the disjunctive or and the
conjunctive and in a different manner in both these documents
reflects some confusion. As a matter of priority, this needs to be
resolved. Thereafter, the basis of the phased strategy must be
approached in accordance with the consensus arrived at on the
definition of the HFSS foods.
10. During the course of hearing, the learned A.S.G. submitted that the
FSSAI is open to receiving suggestions as regards the basis upon
which the phases have been divided. Therefore, we would like them
Page 7 of 31
to seriously consider the standpoint of the petitioner in their final
decision.
(ii) Absence of timeline
11. In case the FSSAI ultimately decides to proceed forward with the
phases as presently suggested, we would like to highlight that the
absence of a fixed timeline separating the two-phases, by itself,
raises some concerns. We are afraid that, absent a specific
indication, the implementation of Phase II might take a backseat or
be indefinitely postponed.
12. Assessment of consumer acceptability or giving the industry
adequate time for reformulation cannot be reason enough for this
uncertainty in time. Therefore, a reasonable, scientifically justified
and clearly defined timeline or transitionary period which divides
the two-phases must be indicated, for the approach of the FSSAI to
be a workable one.
(iii) Alternate basis for approaching the phased strategy
13. In connection with this phased manner of implementation, the
petitioner would submit that “ a phased approach may be justified as a
means of progressively transitioning from relatively higher thresholds to
scientifically appropriate thresholds ”. As an illustration, they have
drawn attention to the Israeli model which adopted an initial phase
with higher thresholds and subsequently moved to lower
thresholds within a defined period.
Page 8 of 31
14. We, prima facie, see some logic in approaching the phases in the
aforesaid manner as well. We would like the FSSAI to give some
thought to this aspect too.
B. Threshold levels of the nutrients-of-concern and the approach
under the 2024 Guidelines
15. The FSSAI’s proposal indicates that, for the purposes of this
regulation on FoPL, the nutrient-of-concern thresholds specified
under the 2024 Guidelines issued by the ICMR-NIN would be taken
into consideration.
16. Guideline 15 of the 2024 Guidelines reads “ Minimize the consumption
of high fat, sugar, salt (HFSS) and ultra-processes foods (UPFs) ”. The
threshold criteria for nutrients-of-concern in both solid foods and
beverages are provided under Table 15.1 which is reproduced thus:
“Table 15.1. Nutrients of concern threshold criteria for
foods and beverages
Nutrients per
2
Liquids (ml) Solids (g)
1
100g or ml
Calorie (kcal) 70 250
Salt (mg) 175 625
Added sugar (g) 2.0 3
Added fat (g) 1.5 4.2
1
Nutrient threshold criteria apply to all cooked/packaged foods and
beverages with added sugar, added salt or added fat.
2
Liquids include any product such as all beverages, fruit juices, coconut
water, butter milk, lassi, coffee and tea.
For solid foods:
• Threshold for sugar has been calculated at ~5% energy from added
sugar, and not exceeding 10% energy from total sugar.
Page 9 of 31
• Threshold for fat has been calculated at ~15% energy from added fat, and
not exceeding 30% energy from total fat.
For liquid foods/ Beverages:
• Threshold for sugar has been calculated at ~10% energy from added
sugar, and not exceeding 30% energy from total sugar (including
naturally present sugar in fruit juices/milk etc.).
• Threshold for fat has been calculated at ~15% energy from added fat, and
not exceeding 30% energy from total fat.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Table 15.1 states that the threshold values for, (i) 100 ml of liquid
food would be 70 kcal of calories, 175mg of salt, 2g of sugar and 1.5g
of fat respectively, and (ii) For 100g of solid food would be 250 kcal
of energy, 625mg of salt, 3g of sugar and 4.2g of fat respectively.
18. It is important that we look into Table 15.2 as well. It bears some
significance for the present discussion.
19. Under Table 15.2, the 2024 Guidelines divide all solid foods into
three categories based on the degree of processing i.e., Group A
(minimally processed with no additives), Group B (moderately
processed with no additives) and Group C (excessively processed
with additives). Thereafter, those foods are further sub-categorized
into groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively, based on calorific value. To be
more specific, (i) food group 1 would consist of foods having energy
<250 kcal, (ii) food group 2 would consist of foods having energy
between 250 to 500 kcal due to excessive added sugar or fat, and (iii)
food group 3 would consist of foods having energy >500 kcal due
to excessive added sugar or fat. As a result, sub-categories A1, A2
and A3 respectively are made within Group A; B1, B2 and B3
respectively are made within Group B; and C1, C2 and C3
Page 10 of 31
respectively are made within Group C. To put it simply, at the first-
level, categories have been made based on the level of processing
and thereafter, sub-categories have been made based on calorific
value.
20. It is after such an exhaustive exercise that Guideline 15 identifies
food categories 2 and 3 respectively, i.e., A2, A3, B2, B3, C2 and C3
respectively as “ HFSS foods ”. For the ease of convenience, we
reproduce the relevant excerpts from Guideline 15 along with Table
15.2 as under:
“ Categorisation of foods based on level of processing &
HFSS
Based on the extent of food processing, availability of nutrients,
additives used and nutrients of concern (fat, sugar and salt) as
well as the concept of 'My Plate for the Day', there is a need to
make informed food choices. Threshold values for energy, added
sugar, added fat (used for cooking) and salt for 100g cooked or
packaged food are given in Table 15.1. Classification of foods
based on the level of processing and the level of nutrients of
concerns (HFSS foods) using the threshold mentioned in Table
15.1 is provided with some examples in Table 15.2. The list of
foods is exhaustive but not limited to the mentioned foods.
Category A indicates minimal processing, category B indicates
moderate level of processing, but category C falls under
excessive processing with many additives added (UPF). Within
the level of processing, foods are also classified based on the level
of added fats, sugar and salt (HFSS). HFSS foods are classified
into three categories. Food category 1 indicates energy, fat,
sugar and salt within normal level from 100 grams food eaten.
While category 2 and 3 indicate moderate and higher levels of
energy and fats or sugar or both along with excessive salt.
Category 2 and 3 fall under HFSS foods.
-xxx-
Page 11 of 31
Table 15.2. ICMR-NIN food categorization based on
extent of processing, and nutrients (fat, sugar, salt) of
concern
Degree of
alteration
Definition Examples Calorie based
classification
of edible
portion
Group A
Edible portion is
unaltered for
consumption,
Nutrient losses
are minimal.
•All whole grains
and legumes-
minimally
polished/hand
pound rice, puffed
rice, whole dal,
whole wheat, whole
millets, corn, oats,
other cereals and
legumes, fresh
flours of whole
cereals, millet and
legume made from
local mills.
A1
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
foods
These products
are foods
prepared with
common
ingredients such
as spices, salt,
sugar and oils.
Energy:< 250
Kcal
Added fat: <
4.2g (<15%
energy)/Total
fat not
exceeding 30%
energy.
To be consumed
soon after
preparation.
• All preparations
made from above
mentioned whole
grains, pulses and
flour, including
dosa & idly batter,
snacks, chips and
other savories.
Added sugar:
<3g (<5%
energy)/Total
sugar not
exceeding 10%
energy.
These foods do
not have any
additives (like
preservatives,
homogenizers,
coloring agents
or artificial
flavors, bleaches,
improvers etc.,).
Salt: <0.625g
• Freshly cooked
curries with lentil,
beans, vegetables,
roots, tubers,
greens,
mushrooms, fresh
herbs etc.
A2 (HFSS)
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
• Freshly cooked
fish, meat and egg.
Energy: >250
to 500 Kcal,
due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
• Frozen foods
without
preservatives
pasteurized milk,
curd prepared at
home or from
market, fermented
Salt: MAY BE
MORE
A3 (HFSS)
Page 12 of 31
cheese or paneer
made at home
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
• Fruits and
vegetables-fresh or
frozen (without
chemical), cut
fruits, fresh juices
(just made with no
ingredients except
water), cut
vegetable salads etc.
Energy: >500
Kcal due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
Salt: MAY BE
MORE
• Whole nuts and
seeds
• Fresh lemon juice
water, plain water,
Basil seeds or chia
seeds soaked in
water, tender
coconut water,
milk, buttermilk,
etc.
Group B
Edible portion
may be altered,
but do not have
additives.
Nutrient losses
are minimal like
group A, but
some fibre is also
lost.
• All highly
polished rice, dal,
maida or refined
wheat flour,
polished millets,
corn, oats, other
cereals and
legumes.
B1
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
foods
Energy:< 250
Kcal;
• All preparations
made with the
above food stuffs
including snacks,
chips and other
savories.
Added fat: <
4.2g (<15%
energy)/Total
fat not
exceeding 30%
energy.
These foods are
sun dried, dried,
snap frozen,
blanched,
fermented,
baked, canned,
dehydrated,
High
Temperature
Short Time
(HTST), deep
fried or roasted.
• Frozen curries,
fermented and
pickled vegetables.
Added sugar:
<3g (<5%
energy)/Total
sugar not
exceeding 10%
energy.
• Frozen fish and
meat.
• Commercially
available yoghurt,
Salt: <0.625g
Page 13 of 31
Have long shelf
life ranging from
few weeks to
years.
paneer, butter,
savories, papads,
pickles, sweets and
chips.
B2 (HFSS)
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
These foods do
not have any
additives, (like
preservatives,
homogenizers,
coloring agents
or artificial
flavors, bleaches,
improvers, etc).
• Fresh fruit juices.
Energy: >250
to 500 Kcal,
due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
Salt: MAY BE
MORE
B3 (HFSS)
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
Energy: >500
Kcal, due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
Salt: MAY BE
MORE
Edible portion
completely
altered. These
foods do not
resemble their
original state.
Extensively
processed with
heavy loss of
micronutrients
& fibre.
• Commercially
produced bread,
breakfast cereals,
cakes, chips,
biscuits, fries, jams,
sauces,
mayonnaise.
C1
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
Energy:< 250
Kcal;
• Commercially
produced ice cream,
protein packs
powders, peanut
butter, soy chunks,
tofu and frozen
foods with
additives.
Group C
Added fat: <
4.2g (<15%
energy)/Total
fat not
exceeding 30%
energy.
foods
Mass produced
with additives
(like
preservatives,
homogenizers,
coloring agents
or artificial
Added sugar:
<3g (<5%
energy)/Total
• Commercially
produced cheese,
Page 14 of 31
flavors, bleaches,
improvers
antimicrobials
and other
substances).
butter, paneer with
additives, meat,
plant-based meat,
refined flours of
cereals, millets and
legumes.
Culinary
ingredients such as
cooking oils, refined
sugars, salt and
spices etc.
sugar not
exceeding 10%
energy.
Salt: <0.625g
C2 (HFSS)
These foods
usually are very
low in
micronutrients
and are fibre
depleted.
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
• All cool drinks,
energy drinks, fruit
juices, etc.
Energy: >250
to 500 Kcal,
due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
Salt: MAY BE
HIGH
C3 (HFSS)
(Energy &
nutrients for
100g
cooked/package
d food)
Energy: >500
Kcal, due to
excessive added
sugar or fat
Salt: MAY BE
HIGH
[…]
• All foods categorized under A2, A3; B2, B3; C2, C3 are high calorie
HFSS foods. But foods naturally high in energy such as nuts and seeds are
not classified as HFSS.
• All foods under Group C are depleted in fibre and micronutrients; and
contain industrially processed/produced ingredients and many additives,
and therefore are classified as UPFs .”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. If close attention is paid to food groups 2 and 3 respectively, i.e. sub-
categories A2, A3, B2, B3, C2 and C3 respectively of Table 15.2,
Page 15 of 31
while these are classified as “HFSS”, the differentiation between
them in terms of the exact amount of added fats/added sugar/salt
is not intelligible. Whereas, in sub-categories A1, B1 and C1
respectively, which fall under food category 1, the exact amount of
calories along with the exact amount of added fats/added
sugar/salt is indicated clearly.
22. We would like to know whether the FSSAI wishes to account for the
difference between food categories 2 and 3 respectively in their
FoPL. This is simply because, if the threshold levels indicated in
Table 15.1 are simpliciter abided by, the difference between food
categories 2 and 3 would disappear. In other words, we would be
left with foods which fall within food category 1 (within the
minimum threshold limits as indicated in Table 15.1) and foods
which do not fall under food category 1 (exceeding the minimum
threshold limits as indicated in Table 15.1).
23. One way in which such differentiation could be accounted for is
through adopting the alternate mode of the phased approach as
indicated by the petitioner and as adopted in Israel. To be more
specific, food category 3 could be targeted in Phase I. Thereafter,
food category 2 could be targeted in Phase II. In such a decreasing
fashion, the threshold levels can continuously be reduced in
subsequent phases so that the collective food environment
undergoes constant, gradual and systemic change. Such a method
would also address any apprehension that the threshold levels
indicated under Table 15.1 of the 2024 Guidelines would set the
benchmark very low such that most packaged foods would be
Page 16 of 31
included under the FoPL system. This would have two
consequences – One, the consumers would be left confused and
would be effectively denied a ‘healthier choice’ if all products carry
the warning and two, consumers would not be able to separate the
products having relatively more harmful levels of the nutrients-of-
concern from those having relatively less harmful levels of the
nutrients-of-concern.
24. It is needless to say that, if such an alternate phased approach is
entertained, the timelines separating each such phase would have
to be indicated with necessary clarity.
25. Moreover, if the FSSAI wishes to take the sub-classification in Table
15.2 into consideration, then the exact levels of added fat, added
sugar and salt in food categories 2 and 3 respectively would have to
be demarcated such that sub-categories B2 and C2 respectively are
differentiable from sub-categories B3 and C3 respectively, not just
in terms of calorific value but also in terms of the exact levels of
added fat, added sugar and salt present.
26. Additionally, a point of note is that the difference between Food
Group B (moderately processed with no additives) and Food Group
C (excessively processed with additives) must also somehow be
reflected in the way in which warning labels are imagined. It has
been pointed to us that bunching ultra-processed foods with other
packaged foods which are minimally processed, would ignore that
nutritional benefits provided by minimally processed foods far
outweigh those offered by ultra-processed foods. Now, this is not to
say that in the process of taking this aspect into consideration, the
Page 17 of 31
interpretive warning-style FoPL must be done away with and an
alternate FoPL must be re-imagined from scratch. That might, again,
divide the opinions of the experts. All that we are trying to say is
that this is also a factor which has to be kept in mind while deciding
the threshold levels for the present FoPL and if considered feasible,
different threshold levels can be fashioned for products based on
their level of processing as well.
27. Furthermore, the FSSAI’s present proposal seeks to include certain
“ specified sweetened beverages” under their present Phase I. We
would like to know what kind of specific sweetened beverages are
sought to be targeted under Phase I and if a different threshold limit
would dictate their labelling, the FSSAI would have to indicate the
same.
C. Font size of the proposed label
28. The FSSAI’s proposal indicates that the font size of the FoPL would
be one point larger than the font used for the nutritional information
table at the back of the pack.
29. The Food Safety Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations,
2020 (“ 2020 regulations ”) regulates the font size that is to be used
for such nutritional information. Regulation 4 lays down the general
requirements for labelling and display. Regulation 4(7) particularly
states that the contents on the label shall be clear, unambiguous,
prominent, conspicuous, indelible and readily legible by the consumer
under normal conditions of purchase and use . In addition to these
general requirements, regulation 5 deals specifically with labelling
Page 18 of 31
requirements. Regulation 6 lays down the specifications pertaining
to the “Principal Display Panel”, under the broad umbrella of which
the nutritional information table would also fall. These
specifications include the font size referred to by the FSSAI’s
proposal. Regulation 6 reads thus:
“ 6. Principal display panel. - (1) The information required
under these regulations shall be given on the principal display
panel of the package or container and such information may be
given in following manner, -
(a) All information should be grouped together and given at
one place.
Or
(b) The pre-printed information be grouped together and
given in one place and, Online information or those not pre-
printed be grouped together in another place.
(2) Area of Principal Display Panel-The area of principal
display panel shall not be less than:
(a) In the case of a rectangular package, forty percent of the
product of height and width of the panel of such package
having the largest area;
(b) In case of cylindrical or nearly cylindrical, round or
nearly round, oval or nearly oval package, forty percent of the
product of the height and average circumference of such
package; or
(c) In the case of package of any other shape, twenty percent
of the total surface area of the package;
(d) In the case of package having a capacity of ten cubic
centimeters or less, the principal display panel may be card
or tape affixed firmly to the package and bearing the required
information under these regulations.
(3) The height of any numeral and letter required under these
regulations, on the principal display panel shall be as shown in
table below:
Page 19 of 31
Area of Principal
Display Panel
Minimum Height of numeral and letter in
mm
Normal Case When blown, formed
moulded, or perforated
on container
2
Upto 200 cm 1 2
2
Above 200 cm upto
2
500 cm
2 4
Above 500 cm2 upto
2
2500 cm
3 5
2
Above 2500 cm 6 8
Provided that the size of numeral and/or letters required for
declaration of net weight, retail sale price, date of expiry or best
before or the use by date (wherever and as applicable) and
Consumer care details on the principal display panel shall be as
provided in the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 (1 of 2010) and the
rules made there under.
2[Provided further that the size of numeral or letter required for
all declarations under these regulations on the crown or closure
of returnable glass bottle shall not be less than 1 mm.]
The width of the letter or numeral shall not be less than one-
third of its height, but this proviso shall not apply in the case of
numeral “1” and letters i, I and l.”
30. As is evident from the aforesaid, the Table annexed to Regulation
6(3) of the 2020 Regulations prescribes the font size of the contents
in the principal display panel relative to the area of the principal
display panel. A font size, one point larger than the aforementioned,
is proposed to be used by the FSSAI for the hexagonal FoPL.
31. It is the petitioner’s submission that the font size proposed is too
small. In order to get a broad idea of whether such font size will be
clear, unambiguous, prominent, conspicuous and readily legible by
Page 20 of 31
the consumer under normal conditions of purchase and use, it is
important that we understand the dimensions of the hexagonal logo
first. However, the FSSAI’s proposal is silent on this front. A
discussion on the size, dimensions and other details of the
hexagonal FoPL are also crucial.
32. We would also like to know whether the FSSAI intends to fix the
size of the logo relative to the area of the front of the package or
make it standardized. The petitioner would state that it must ideally
be specified in relative terms to the overall size of the package itself
and that countries have used labels which occupy 15-20% area in
relation to the principal area of the package. We would like the
expert committee of the FSSAI to additionally deliberate upon all
the aforesaid.
D. Some additional aspects
(i) ‘Added’ Sugar and ‘Added’ Fat as the criteria.
33. The sugar, salt and fat termed as nutrients-of-concern are together
called the ‘Unholy Trinity’ by health advisors and junk food critics.
The ‘unholiness’ arises not only from the added sugar and added fat
in a food product. It is the total value of these nutrients available in
a product which has to be considered.
34. The petitioner has also pointed out that the threshold must be
decided on the basis of “ Total Sugar ” and “ Total Fat ” respectively
and not on the basis of “ Added Sugar” and “ Added Fat ”. It is also
stated that consensus on this aspect has already been arrived at in
the Stakeholders’ meeting on FoPL conducted on 29.10.2021. The
Page 21 of 31
relevant extracts of the minutes of the said meeting are reproduced
below:
“(ii) Total Sugars vs. Added Sugars: Similarly with regards to
Sugar, keeping NCDs and consumer health in mind, total sugar
was proposed for display on FOPL. The scientific members
opined that although is it the added sugars that are processed,
sugars in general beyond certain limit are a health concern and
presentation of total sugars along with energy in kcal on the
front of pack would help consumers to make an informed choice.
After detailed deliberation, it was concluded that ‘Total Sugars’
appears to be the best option to proceed with, considering the
health concerns, acceptability around the globe and ease of
analytical testing. Moreover, energy calculations are based on
total sugar and not added sugar and with energy in tandem on
the FOPL, a consumer would have a better informed choice as
against the Added Sugar. Hence, consensus was formed on
using Total sugar for FOP labels.
(iii) Total Fats vs. Saturated Fats: While ‘Saturated Fat’ is
mentioned on the FOPL labels internationally, a concern was
raised regarding dairy products, which are widely consumed in
India and contain comparatively higher saturated fats. In this
regard, it was mentioned that in FOPL models, dairy products
generally have a separate category and different thresholds than
general foods to accommodate their basic nutritional
composition. Members from consumer organizations opined
that use of Saturated fat may single out a particular type of fat
as bad fat and keeping issues like obesity (and not just
cardiovascular diseases) in mind; it is more preferable to
indicate Total fat. The scientific members reiterated the fact that
an ideal combination of fats (MUFA, PUFA and SAFA) is
important and less than 10% of energy should come from
saturated fats. It was also noted that total energy content would
also be mentioned on FOPL, and would provide adequate
information as far as obesity is concerned. Considering the use
of Saturated fats across the world and ICMR and WHO
recommendations on saturated fats (not more than 10% of the
Page 22 of 31
energy needs), a consensus was arrived on indicating saturated
fat for FOP labels. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
35. It is clear from the aforesaid minutes that “Total Sugar” and
“Saturated Fat” would be used for the purpose of the FoPL. In this
regard, we would like the FSSAI to weigh in and indicate whether
there has been a change in stance in comparison to the consensus
arrived at in the aforesaid stakeholder consultation. If so, we would
like to know how the underlying concerns are sought to be
addressed.
36. Additionally, the presence of “Trans Fat” in foods is also required
to be taken into consideration. The question that comes to our mind
now is whether the FoPL would reflect both saturated fat and trans-
fat levels or just the former?
(ii) Placement of the FoPL
37. There is insufficient information as regards the placement of the red
hexagonal logo on the front of the package. It is needless to state
that this is one another aspect which directly dictates whether the
FoPL is prominent, conspicuous and readily legible. For example , for
the veg/non-veg logo, the 2020 Regulations under Regulation
5(4)(d) states that the symbol shall be prominently displayed on the
package having contrast background on principal display panel,
just close in proximity to the name or brand name of the production
front of pack. Similar requirements as regards where the hexagonal
FoPL should be placed, under what background etc. also needs to
be indicated by the FSSAI.
Page 23 of 31
(iii) Presence of pictorial representations for Fat, Sugar and Salt respectively
38. In our order dated 10.02.2026, we had reproduced certain
illustrative FoPLs for the benefit of the FSSAI’s deliberations. What
is different in the proposal presently placed before us is that the
FSSAI seems to have adopted a strictly word-based warning label
i.e., one that denotes in words whether the product is high in fat,
sugar and/or salt. This word heavy FoPL presupposes a certain
level of comprehension, literacy, and reading capability across all
States/regions, vernaculars, age groups, literacy levels, etc., of the
consuming population. Ideally, an all-inclusive FoPL which
effectively caters to the diverse population of this country should
incorporate a combination of words along with pictorial
representations of the individual nutrients-of-concern. This would
ensure that the information provided in the FoPL is truly accessible.
It is of note that Regulation 4(7) states that the contents of the label
must be clear…under normal conditions of purchase and use. The normal
conditions of purchase and use in India are itself difficult to fit into
a single, homogenous box and must therefore, not be addressed by
through a blanket approach. Moreover, the mode of purchasing
foods products, in general, is going digital. Therefore, such trends
in the realities of Indian consumption must also be taken into
consideration and reflected in design choices made for FoPLs.
39. Therefore, we would like the FSSAI to take the aforesaid into
account and revisit their conception of the FoPL as it stands
presently.
Page 24 of 31
(iv) Individual hexagons for each nutrient-of-concern
40. Keeping in mind the true object and purpose of the FoPL, we would
also like to know from the FSSAI why they have steered away from
adopting separate hexagons for each nutrient-of-concern. We
understand that the plan, as of now, is to implement the FoPL in
two phases and focus on products which are high in two or more
nutrients-of-concern or specified highly sweetened beverages in
Phase I. Nevertheless, Phase I could very well have indicated “High
Sugar”, “High Fat”, High Salt” and/or “Highly Sweetened
Beverage” each in a distinct hexagonal label. For instance, let’s say a
product is high in sugar and fat. As per the FSSAI , “High Sugar”
and “High Fat” would compositely be indicated in one single
hexagon instead of “High Sugar” in one hexagon and “High Fat” in
another. We would like to understand the thought process behind
this.
41. The petitioner also submits that the presence of high levels of two
or more nutrients-of-concern should ideally result in two or more
warning hexagons so that the consumer is made aware of the same
from afar.
42. Additionally, if the FSSAI takes into consideration our previous
concern, i.e., that a pictorial representation of the specific nutrient-
of-concern may also be necessary, separate hexagonal labels would
be all the more important.
Page 25 of 31
(v) Colour of the hexagonal label
43. The FSSAI’s proposal has suggested a ‘red’ hexagonal label
presently. However, some apprehensions regarding the potential
confusion of the colour with non-veg ingredient(s) present in the
packaged product, have been raised. Consumers have been
habituated into associating the green colour with veg products and
the red colour with non-veg products, especially in the context of
labels. Therefore, we would like the FSSAI to put some thought into
whether the choice of colour needs to be re-visited.
(vi) Danger of an increase in the use of artificial preservatives, emulsifiers etc.
44. It has also been pointed out that targeting the three nutrients-of-
concern may have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of
a corresponding increase in the use of artificial preservatives,
emulsifiers and other additives. This is because salt, sugar and fat
respectively also perform some functional roles in the packaged
foods including (i) enhancing taste and palatability, (ii) texture and
structure, (iii) shelf life and microbiological safety, and (iv) heat
transfer and processing stability, amongst others. Warning labels
targeting the nutrients-of-concern may, therefore, also result in the
use of more alternative chemicals to replace such sugar, fat or salt.
45. The FSSAI must keep this danger in mind, while finalizing their
threshold limits and must also issue some corresponding
regulations to the addition of such chemicals in packaged foods.
Page 26 of 31
(vii) The use of a “Nutrient Reference Value-based, per serving” approach
46. The All India Food Processors Association (“ AIFPA ”), an
intervenor before us, has submitted that a Nutrient Reference
Value-based, per serving approach must be preferred.
47. No doubt, the aforesaid is a scientifically sound and consumer
empowering model which is followed in some western countries.
Though the data-based information would caution and provide
necessary information to the consumer, it cannot raise a red signal
insofar as the harmful contents is concerned. Often, it may turn out
to be a red herring, likely to be ignored, rather than be noticed.
Hence, while the display of such data would be helpful, the FoPL
model which raises caution with respect to total content of the
nutrients of concern would be more appropriate.
(viii) Mandatory nature of the FoPL
48. The petitioner would finally submit that, compliance to FoPL model
that is finalized in the form of a final regulation must be made
mandatory and uniformly enforceable for all the covered food
products without leaving the implementation to the discretion of
the food business operators.
49. In this regard, we must point out that the Draft 2022 Regulations
which proposed the Indian Nutrition Rating (“ INR ”) system under
Regulation 1 sub-clause (2) provided that “ (2) They shall come into
force on the date of their final publication in the Official Gazette.
Compliance shall be voluntary until a period of 48 months from the date of
final notification of these regulations and mandatory thereafter ”.
Page 27 of 31
50. Given the aforesaid stipulation in the Draft 2022 Guidelines, we
would like the FSSAI to respond specifically to the suggestion of the
petitioner that the final FoPL regime must be made mandatory from
the get-go. If not, we would like to know what is a reasonable period
after which they intend to make its compliance mandatory.
E. Nutritional literacy in schools
51. Throughout the hearing of the present matter, we have been made
aware that children are under acute risk of developing unhealthy
eating behaviors due to a variety of reasons. In that regard, the
following observations of our previous order are pertinent:
“ 8. What compounds this concern is the scale of a child’s
exposure to such products, often before they are equipped to
evaluate what they are consuming. According to UNICEF’s
Child Nutrition Report 2025, the percentage of overweight
school-age children and adolescents (aged 5-19 years) increased
from 2% to 10% between 2000 to 2022. The said report also
notes a telling contrast in children’s immediate food
environment. While around 80% of the kinds of food and
beverages available within schools are freshly cooked meals,
however, nearly 80% of what is available in the vicinity of the
school are packaged snacks. It would be apposite to state that
studies have found that a child’s exposure to particular foods
directly shape their dietary preferences. ”
52. In connection with this, we would like the Union to respond on how
schools plan to incorporate through curriculum, initiatives,
workshops etc., (i) the manner in which information provided in
packaged food items, including nutritional information, FoPL etc.,
must be interpreted, and (ii) other aspects relating to nutritional
literacy. In recognition of the vulnerable position that children are
Page 28 of 31
in vis-à-vis impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making, we are
of the view some action must be taken in this regard.
53. In view of all the aforesaid, we would like the Union and the FSSAI
respectively to provide an appropriate response to the following
questions:
i. What is a reasonable and fixed timeline that the FSSAI
envisages for the implementation of the two phases currently
proposed?
ii. What is the basis for the FSSAI to suggest the inclusion of food
products high in ‘two or more’ nutrients-of-concern and
specified sweetened beverages in Phase I, and the inclusion of
food products high in ‘any one’ nutrient-of-concern in Phase
II respectively?
iii. How does the FSSAI propose to identify the specific sweetened
beverages which fall under Phase I of the proposal?
Additionally, what are the threshold levels of the specific
nutrient(s)-in-concern for such beverages?
iv. Whether, in their calculation of the threshold levels for each
nutrient-of-concern, the FSSAI wishes to account for the
difference between food categories 2 and 3 respectively in the
FoPL?
v. Whether, in their calculation of the threshold levels for each
nutrient-of-concern, the FSSAI wishes to account for the
difference between food groups B (moderately processed with
no additives) and C (excessively processed with additives)
respectively in the FoPL?
Page 29 of 31
vi. Whether the threshold limits for Fat and Sugar are to be
calculated on the basis of ‘Total’ Sugar and ‘Saturated Fat’ as
indicated in the Stakeholders meeting conducted on
29.10.2021? Furthermore, how would trans-fat levels be
factored into the calculations of the fat content for the purpose
of the FoPL?
vii. Considering that an average Indian consumer is habituated
into associating the colour red with non-veg ingredients,
would it be necessary for the FSSAI to revisit the choice of
colour for the FoPL?
viii. What are dimensions of the ‘red hexagon’ proposed to be used
in the FoPL? Whether it would have standardized
specifications or whether it would be calculated in proportion
to the area of the package? Whether the font size used for the
FoPL would be relative to the dimensions of the hexagon
themselves? The manner and method of the placement of such
hexagon(s)?
ix. Without the presence of distinct pictorial representations for
each nutrient-of-concern in the FoPL, how does the FSSAI
propose to cater to the diverse levels of comprehension,
literacy, and reading capability of the consuming population?
x. Why has the FSSAI suggested a
combined/composite/singular hexagon for two or more
nutrients-of-concern instead of separate/distinct/individual
hexagons for each nutrient-of-concern?
Page 30 of 31
xi. How would the FSSAI regulate the potential increase in the
use of artificial preservative, emulsifiers etc., which may result
as a consequence of the implementation of the FoPL?
xii. Once the final regulations making the FoPL mandatory come
to be notified, whether a voluntary period for compliance is
envisaged? If yes, for how long?
xiii. How the Union of India proposes to incorporate through
curriculum, initiatives, workshops etc., (i) the manner in
which information provided in packaged food items,
including nutritional information, FoPL etc., must be
interpreted, and (ii) other aspects relating to nutritional
literacy, at the school-level?
54. Let the FSSAI file its response by way of an affidavit within a period
of 10 days from the date of this order. The same shall be shared with
the petitioner for them to also file their response before the date of
next hearing.
55. Post the matter on 28.09.2026.
……………………………..J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
……….……………………..J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
New Delhi.
th
10 September, 2026.
Page 31 of 31