'If you can’t do it, we will': Supreme Court warns Centre over food labels, gives 2 weeks to act

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the Centre two weeks to act on front-of-pack warning labels for packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat, warning that it would intervene if the government failed to comply with its directions.

"If you can't do it, we will," the bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran said while hearing a Public Interest Litigation concerning food labelling.

Court questions Centre, FSSAI stance

The bench expressed displeasure with the position taken by the Centre and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), particularly after the petitioner pointed to the food regulator’s March 7 meeting minutes.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FSSAI’s position conflicted with earlier court directions. The regulator had cited opposition from the food industry to warning labels and suggested a tabular declaration showing recommended daily requirements of added sugar, saturated fats and salt.

The court also noted that the FSSAI affidavit referred to industry objections but did not adequately address evidence submitted by civil society representatives supporting warning labels.

The bench questioned Additional Solicitor General Brijender Chahar, appearing for the Centre, about the steps taken to implement the court’s directions.

‘Is government under corporate pressure?’

The Supreme Court raised concerns about possible corporate influence over decisions involving public health, particularly the health of children.

"The matter concerns the health of citizens, particularly growing children, and decisions regarding it should not be influenced by corporate pressure," the court told the Centre and the FSSAI.

The bench also remarked that the government appeared to be "yielding to that pressure" from large corporate entities and stressed that its intervention was being made in "public interest".

"Will the government do it itself, or will we have to issue an order?" the court asked.

When the ASG sought time to explain the government's proposed course of action, the bench reiterated that the Centre was expected to follow the court's directions.

"If you cannot do it, we will pass an order," the bench said.

Court rejects argument over Indian foods

The Centre referred to traditional Indian foods such as namkeen and argued that applying international standards could result in several products receiving 'red warning marks'.

The ASG also said food products in developed countries generally contain lower quantities of salt, sugar and fat, making direct application of those standards to Indian foods difficult.

"Should India remain an underdeveloped country?" the court asked, rejecting that line of argument.

The bench said warning labels were intended to help consumers understand what they were buying, rather than stop products from being sold.

"Manufacturers might not like it, but the consumer ought to know," the court observed.

It added that the final decision on whether to buy a product would remain with the consumer.

"Manufacturers do not play a decisive role in this matter," the court said.

The Centre has been given two weeks to comply, after which the court warned that "a verdict will be pronounced next time."