"Why voluntary compliance for a year? Why do you need so much time?" That was Justice J B Pardiwala's question to FSSAI on 28 September 2026, as the Supreme Court reserved its order on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged food. He also reportedly told the regulator that whatever order the Court passes will be binding on it.
If you make, import or sell packaged food in India, that exchange matters. A warning label sits on the most visible part of your pack. It can change how a shopper sees your product in a second. And the Court now appears less willing to wait than FSSAI is.
What Happened in Court
The matter is 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India (MA 1177/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 437/2024), according to LiveLaw. The bench is Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran. The petitioner is a Kerala-based public charitable organisation, represented by Advocate Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi. Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar appeared for the Union of India and FSSAI.
The petition asks the Court to push FSSAI to implement front-of-pack labelling for packaged foods that are high in nutrients of concern. Reports say the regulator's proposal is for about four months to finalise draft regulations, followed by 365 days of voluntary compliance after notification.
The bench pointed out that the regulator has been looking at this issue since 2022. It also questioned the need for fresh stakeholder consultation. According to Business Standard, the parties have been asked to file written submissions within three days, after which the Court will pronounce its order.
This was not the first hearing. On 11 September 2026, the same bench asked why ultra-processed foods were being grouped with other packaged products, and asked for the scientific basis behind the thresholds. In July 2025, Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora publicly said the Court had directed FSSAI to implement front-of-pack labels. Tribune's report on that post doesn't give the bench or the exact direction, so treat that history with care.
What the Proposed Label Looks Like
Based on the reports we reviewed, FSSAI's proposal centres on a red hexagonal warning on a white square background, modelled on the Canadian approach. Products that cross set thresholds for added sugar, added fat or salt would carry the warning.
The thresholds are said to draw on the Dietary Guidelines for Indians 2024, issued by ICMR-National Institute of Nutrition. We haven't seen the final numerical cut-offs in the material we reviewed, so don't build a reformulation plan on a number you heard second-hand.
There is also a separate proposed warning for products containing non-caloric sweeteners. LiveLaw reports the wording as "CONTAIN NON CALORIC SWEETENER." That's a different trigger from the sugar, fat and salt warnings, and diet drinks, sugar-free sweets and "no added sugar" snacks could all be affected.
The Ultra-Processed Food Question
The bench has also been probing whether ultra-processed foods should face the same thresholds as moderately processed ones. India Legal and LiveLaw both describe the Court referring to the three-group classification in the 2024 dietary guidelines: minimally processed, moderately processed and excessively processed.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat reportedly argued that a product like Kurkure and a product like salted cashews shouldn't be treated the same way just because both come in a packet. He also raised the question of whether nutrient levels should be measured per 100 grams, per serving, or both.
That last point is where many brands will feel the impact. A 100-gram basis and a serving basis can give very different answers for the same product, especially for snacks, sauces, spreads and beverages with small serving sizes. If the final rule picks 100 grams, your serving-size strategy won't rescue you.
Whether the Court accepts that kind of argument, no one can predict yet. The bench has asked the regulator to justify its classification, and FSSAI will have to explain it.
Your Compliance Checklist
- Map your product portfolio. List every SKU, its nutrient values per 100 grams and per serving, and mark which ones are close to the likely thresholds.
- Watch the single-nutrient risk. Test each SKU under both a one-nutrient and a two-nutrient trigger, since reports differ on which FSSAI is proposing.
- Audit sweetener use. Identify every product with a non-caloric sweetener, because a separate warning is proposed for those.
- Check your existing claims. Review "healthy," "natural," "low sugar" and similar claims against the actual nutrient profile, as a warning label next to a health claim invites scrutiny.
- Plan label and artwork lead time. Ask your packaging and print vendors how long a redesign takes, so a shorter compliance window doesn't catch you out.
Why Act Now
The most important fact here is the timeline. FSSAI's own position is roughly four months for drafting and then a year of voluntary compliance. The bench has openly questioned that. The Court can shorten the period, set its own dates or add conditions, and FSSAI has been told the order will bind it.
If the voluntary period shrinks, the time you have to change formulations, redo artwork and clear old packaging stock shrinks with it. Pack redesigns for a large portfolio don't happen in a few weeks. And a voluntary period can still be a public one. Consumers, competitors and advocacy groups will see who has adopted the label early and who hasn't.
Timing matters too. Written submissions are due within days, and the order could arrive soon after. Businesses that have already run the nutrient audit will be able to respond calmly. Those that start after the order will be working to someone else's deadline.
How FoodOS360 Can Help
The hard part of a warning-label rule is rarely the artwork. It's knowing, product by product, which nutrient values sit where. FoodOS360 lets food compliance teams keep label data, nutrient values and claims in one place, check them against regulatory thresholds as they change, and track which SKUs are affected when a rule is notified. It also helps you keep claim substantiation and licence details organised, so you can answer questions from regulators, retailers or your own leadership without digging through spreadsheets.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has reserved its order, and the direction of questioning suggests it wants faster action than FSSAI has proposed. The final label design, thresholds, ultra-processed food treatment and compliance window are all still open. Start with your data, not your packaging.
This article is meant for general information and isn't legal advice. Talk to a qualified food law professional before making labelling decisions based on this evolving case.