![\"'This](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-133211175,imgsize-1388926,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/packaged-food.jpg\" "\\"SC")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday sharply criticised the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India<\/a> (FSSAI<\/a>) over the delay in introducing front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it would issue directions if the government failed to take a final decision.A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran gave the Centre two weeks to place its final decision on record, making it clear that the government could either implement the proposed warning labels on its own or face judicial intervention.“This is your last chance. Next time we will dictate the judgment,” the bench said, according to ANI.The court repeatedly underlined that the issue was one of public health, particularly the health of children and questioned the government’s reluctance to move ahead with stronger nutritional warnings.“Why? You don’t want people of this country to remain healthy? More particularly growing children?” the bench asked during the hearing.Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general Brijender Chahar argued that applying strict warning standards could create complications for traditional Indian food items. He said products such as namkeen could end up carrying red warning symbols because of their fat or salt content.He also argued that international nutritional standards might not be directly applicable to Indian dietary habits, pointing out that even two eggs could exceed the prescribed daily fat limit.The court, however, was unconvinced.The bench said consumers were already aware that packaged foods contained sugar, fat and carbohydrates, but front-of-pack warning labels would provide a simpler and more effective way of communicating nutritional risks before a purchase was made.The judges also rejected the argument that warning labels could adversely affect manufacturers.According to ANI, the bench observed that the final decision to purchase a product would continue to rest with consumers and that commercial considerations could not take precedence over public health.During the proceedings, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a manufacturer, attempted to make submissions. The court responded by stating that the case concerned the health of citizens and that manufacturers could not determine government policy on the issue.Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat suggested that food products could be categorised differently and that detailed nutritional information should be displayed.The bench clarified that it was not opposed to any particular food product but was only seeking greater consumer awareness.“In this country, how many people can afford dry fruits? And how many children buy Kurkure? That makes all the difference. We are not against any particular product. We only want the person purchasing it to know what he is consuming,” the court said, according to ANI.The bench also referred to its February 10, 2026, order, in which it had previously addressed the issue and laid down its observations.During Thursday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel drew the court’s attention to the minutes of an FSSAI meeting held on March 7, which allegedly reflected a position contrary to the suggestions made by the court earlier.The judges also took exception to the Centre’s argument that India could not easily adopt international standards relating to nutritional warnings.“We do not approve the stance of the Union when it says that it’s not possible to match the international standards, more particularly developed countries. Should India remain an undeveloped country?” the bench asked, according to ANI.“The world should know that India is concerned about the health of its citizens and more particularly children,” it added.The case stems from a petition seeking mandatory front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt and saturated fat.The proposed labels are intended to help consumers quickly identify potentially unhealthy products before buying them.<\/p>\n Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n