Loading…
On 10 September 2026 the Supreme Court directed FSSAI to file, within 10 days, a detailed affidavit with a scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline for Front-of-Package Labelling (FoPL).
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran questioned FSSAI's two-phase plan, warning that without a fixed schedule Phase II could be indefinitely postponed.
Under the proposal, Phase I puts red hexagon warnings on foods high in two or more nutrients of concern and on specified sweetened beverages; Phase II extends them to foods high in any one.
The court framed 13 questions, including whether the regime will be mandatory from the outset; the matter is listed next on 28 September 2026.
| Feature | Phase I | Phase II |
|---|---|---|
| Products covered | High in two or more nutrients of concern, plus specified sweetened beverages | High in any single nutrient of concern |
| Label | Red hexagon warning | Red hexagon warning |
| Timeline | First stage of rollout | Not yet fixed - the gap the court flagged |
Establishes FSSAI and empowers it to set standards and regulate labelling of packaged food.
The labelling regulations under which front-of-pack nutrition warnings are being framed.
Directs the State to raise the level of nutrition and improve public health - the policy basis for nutrition labelling.
The Supreme Court has read the right to health into the right to life, which grounds judicial oversight of food-safety policy.
Statutory food regulator under the FSS Act, 2006; proposed the FoPL regime
Issued the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, on which the nutrient thresholds are based
Food Safety and Standards Act enacted; FSSAI created under it
FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulations notified
ICMR-NIN releases the Dietary Guidelines for Indians
FSSAI's red hexagon warning-label proposal made public
Supreme Court seeks affidavit with a fixed FoPL timeline within 10 days
Next hearing
GS Paper II > Government policies and interventions; statutory bodies. GS Paper III > Food processing; health
General Awareness > Polity; statutory bodies
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Answer: original jurisdiction
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements: 1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid. 2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: Neither 1 nor 2
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
Answer: The Supreme Court of India
In India, Judicial Review implies
Answer: the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders.
With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?
Answer: The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
Simplified nutrition information or warnings printed on the front of packaged food so consumers can spot unhealthy products quickly
Fat, sugar and salt - nutrients whose excess intake is linked to obesity, diabetes and heart disease
A label that judges the product (e.g. 'HIGH SUGAR') rather than only listing nutrient quantities