Supreme Court presses FSSAI on red hexagon front-of-pack warning labels for HFSS foods

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran accepted FSSAI progress on front-of-pack labelling but flagged gaps in thresholds, phasing and design, seeking further answers.

The Supreme Court has told the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) that its proposal for Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL) on packaged foods, while a step forward, leaves several practical questions unanswered. In an order dated 10 September 2026, a division bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran examined FSSAI’s affidavit proposing a red hexagonal warning label for foods high in fat, sugar or salt, and set out thirteen specific questions the regulator must address. The Court acknowledged “significant progress” since its earlier order but said much anchoring the practical implementation of the scheme remained ambiguous. It also linked the exercise to the right to health under Article 21 and the State’s duty under Article 47, and asked the Union to explain how nutritional literacy would be built into school curricula.

How the labelling dispute reached the Court

The proceedings arise in a writ petition filed by 3S and Our Health Society against the Union of India and FSSAI. By an order dated 13 August 2026, the Court had said urgent headway on FoPL was needed and that inspiration could be drawn from international packaging standards to protect public health, particularly of growing children.

The Court recorded the scientifically substantiated link between obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension and foods categorised as High in Fat, Sugar or Salt (HFSS) or Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF). It had granted two weeks to place a final decision on record, adding that if the Union did not act on its own, the Court would “proceed to pass further directions.”

In response, FSSAI filed an affidavit dated 28 August 2026 setting out its proposal.

What FSSAI proposed

FSSAI proposed a prominent front-of-pack warning in a red-coloured hexagonal shape for products high in any two or more of added saturated fat, added sugar and salt, based on thresholds under the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024 issued by ICMR-NIN. The label would carry declarations such as “HIGH FAT”, “HIGH SUGAR”, “HIGH SALT” and/or “HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE”.

The warning would be in a font one point larger than the nutrition information table on the back of the pack. Single-ingredient products, and foods inherently rich in fat, sugar or salt such as ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey, were proposed for exemption.

Implementation would be in phases. Phase I would cover products high in two or more nutrients and specified sweetened beverages; Phase II would extend the label to products high in any one nutrient. FSSAI stated it was in compliance with the earlier order and would notify the change by amending the relevant regulations.

The gaps the Court identified in the phased approach

The Court said the basis separating the two phases needed clarity. The petitioner argued, in a reply dated 3 September 2026, that a “two or more” trigger effectively redefines HFSS, since excess sugar, salt and saturated fat are independently harmful and act through different pathways — sugar linked to diabetes, salt to hypertension, saturated fat to cardiovascular disease. On that view, requiring two or more nutrients narrows Phase I coverage without scientific backing.

The Court found a definitional disparity. The 2024 Guidelines define HFSS foods using “more added sugar and salt”, while the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Labelling & Display) Amendment Regulations, 2022 use “saturated fat or total sugar or sodium”. The differing use of “and” and “or” reflected confusion that must be resolved as a matter of priority. The Additional Solicitor General submitted FSSAI was open to suggestions on the phasing basis.

The Court also flagged the absence of a timeline between the two phases, warning that without a fixed period Phase II might be indefinitely postponed. It said a reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined transition period must be indicated.

Drawing on the petitioner’s reference to the Israeli model, the Court saw logic in an alternate approach: progressively moving from higher to lower thresholds. It suggested targeting food category 3 in Phase I and food category 2 in Phase II, reducing thresholds in subsequent phases so the food environment changes gradually.

Thresholds, categories and the 2024 Guidelines

The Court examined Tables 15.1 and 15.2 of the 2024 Guidelines. Table 15.1 sets threshold values for solids and liquids; Table 15.2 classifies foods by degree of processing (Groups A, B and C) and calorific value (categories 1, 2 and 3), treating categories 2 and 3 across all groups as HFSS.

The Court noted that while categories 2 and 3 are both marked HFSS, the exact levels of added fat, sugar and salt differentiating them are not intelligible, unlike category 1. It asked whether FSSAI intended to account for the difference between categories 2 and 3, warning that if Table 15.1 thresholds were applied simpliciter, the distinction would disappear.

The Court cautioned that thresholds set too low might place most packaged foods under FoPL, confusing consumers and preventing them from separating more harmful from less harmful products. It also asked FSSAI to reflect the difference between moderately processed Group B and excessively processed Group C, since nutritional benefits of minimally processed foods outweigh those of ultra-processed ones. It clarified this did not mean the interpretive warning-style label should be redesigned from scratch.

Font, design, colour and further concerns

On font size, the Court referred to Regulation 4(7) and Regulation 6 of the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, which require label contents to be clear, prominent and readily legible. It observed the proposal was silent on the dimensions of the hexagon and asked whether the logo size would be standardised or proportionate to package area, the petitioner noting some countries use labels occupying 15–20% of the principal area.

The Court raised the “Added” versus “Total” question. The petitioner argued thresholds should rest on Total Sugar and Total Fat, pointing to a Stakeholders’ meeting on 29 October 2021 where consensus favoured “Total Sugar” and “Saturated Fat”. The Court asked FSSAI to explain any change in stance and how trans-fat would be factored in.

Other concerns included the placement of the hexagon on the pack, the absence of pictorial representations for a diverse consuming population with varying literacy, and why FSSAI chose a single composite hexagon rather than separate hexagons for each nutrient. On colour, the Court noted consumers associate red with non-veg and green with veg products, and asked whether the choice should be revisited.

The Court flagged a further risk: targeting sugar, salt and fat might increase the use of artificial preservatives and emulsifiers, since these nutrients also serve functional roles in shelf life, texture and safety. It asked FSSAI to keep this in mind and issue corresponding regulations. On a Nutrient Reference Value-based, per serving approach urged by intervenor All India Food Processors Association, the Court said such data may be helpful but could become a “red herring”, and a caution-based model was more appropriate.

On the mandatory nature, the petitioner sought compliance made mandatory from the outset. The Court noted the Draft 2022 Regulations proposing an Indian Nutrition Rating system had provided for voluntary compliance for 48 months before becoming mandatory, and asked FSSAI to respond specifically.

Nutritional literacy in schools

The Court recorded that children face acute risk of unhealthy eating. Citing UNICEF’s Child Nutrition Report 2025, it noted overweight prevalence among those aged 5–19 rose from 2% to 10% between 2000 and 2022, and that while roughly 80% of food within schools is freshly cooked, nearly 80% available in the vicinity is packaged snacks. It asked the Union to explain how curricula, initiatives and workshops would teach interpretation of nutritional information and FoPL, and broader nutritional literacy.

Order

The Court framed thirteen questions for the Union and FSSAI, covering the phased timeline, the “two or more” basis, identification of sweetened beverages, treatment of food categories 2 and 3, Groups B and C, use of Total Sugar and Saturated Fat, trans-fat, colour, hexagon dimensions and font, pictorial representation, composite versus separate hexagons, regulation of preservatives, any voluntary compliance period, and school-level nutritional literacy.

FSSAI was directed to file its response by affidavit within 10 days, to be shared with the petitioner for its own reply before the next hearing. The matter was posted to 28 September 2026.