Microplastics warning labels must remain on bottled water, sugar and salt, Madras High Court rules

In the underlying writ petition, the Madras High Court directed that labels on plastic/PET-bottled water state, “This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics,” and that labels on plastic-packaged sugar and salt carry a corresponding warning.

The Court also directed the FSSAI to notify manufacturers and enforce the labelling requirement.

PACE and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association sought recall of the order; the FSSAI sought review.

PACE’s special leave petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the High Court, while the FSSAI’s special leave petition was withdrawn unconditionally.

The Court heard the applications together and considered both maintainability and the merits, noting that the underlying matter was a continuing mandamus.

1. Whether the order requiring micro/nanoplastics warnings on specified food labels should be reviewed or recalled as premature or disproportionate in the absence of conclusive evidence of harm to human health.

2. Whether the presence of micro/nanoplastics in the products, and uncertainty about their source or health effects, justified the interim disclosure requirement.

3. Whether the FSSAI’s unconditional withdrawal of its special leave petition affected the maintainability of its review application.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the procedural bases invoked for review and recall.

Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Section 3(1)(u) defines a “hazard” by reference to a biological, chemical or physical agent with the potential to cause an adverse health effect; Sections 3(1)(zm), (zo), (zp) and (zq) address risk, risk assessment, risk communication and risk management.

Section 16 concerns the FSSAI’s standard-setting functions, including labelling standards.

Section 18 requires health and consumer protection to guide administration of the Act; it permits provisional risk-management measures where possible harm is identified despite scientific uncertainty, requires such measures to be proportionate and reviewed, and provides for public communication of risks and informed consumer choice.

The Court also relied on *3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India*, W.P. (Civil) No. 437 of 2024, as guidance for its approach to labelling and further study.

The Court referred to *Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd.*, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2046, concerning the finality and public-policy implications of abandoning a challenge after withdrawing an SLP.

The Court treated the labelling direction as a disclosure measure, not a finding that bottled water, sugar or salt was unsafe.

It noted that the applicants and the FSSAI did not deny the presence of micro/nanoplastics in the products, and held that uncertainty about their precise source or the extent of health effects did not remove the consumer’s interest in being informed.

Applying Section 18, the Court reasoned that scientific uncertainty did not preclude provisional risk-management action where a potential hazard and reasonable grounds for concern existed; disclosure supported risk communication and informed choice, and was less restrictive than prohibiting the products.

It therefore rejected the arguments that the measure was premature, disproportionate, or unsupported because other jurisdictions lacked comparable labels.

Although it considered the FSSAI’s unconditional SLP withdrawal relevant to maintainability, it proceeded to examine the review on the merits because the underlying proceedings were a continuing mandamus and the connected recall applications were also being considered.

The original directions remained subject to further hearings and continued scientific studies; there was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.