BREAKING
In ‘regular contact’ with US on trade deal, says Commerce Secretary Rajesh AgarwalSukhbir Badal attacked in NandedIndia’s total installed power capacity reaches 552 GWKapu leaders push for youth empowerment and entrepreneurshipMaanasa Choudhary launches REDMI Note 17 5GISRO taking steps to tackle space debrisDarpan Furnishings has opened its store in MiyapurCan legislative privileges override free speech?Tata Stocks rebound after Chandra exit shockIf you can’t do it, we will
National

If you can’t do it, we will

hellohimachalse@gmail.com 14 Aug 2026 1 hour ago

New Delhi: “If you can’t do it, we will.” The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an ultimatum to the Centre on the implementation of front-of-pack warning labels on packaged food products containing high levels of sugar, salt, and saturated fat.

The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with the stance taken by the Central Government and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), asking if the authorities were under pressure from corporates. “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.

Hearing a Public Interest Litigation, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran pulled up the FSSAI after the petitioner pointed out the food body’s contention that the industry was opposed to the idea of labelling.

The petitioner’s counsel cited the minutes of the FSSAI meeting held on March 7, stating that the decisions taken therein were in direct contradiction to the court’s earlier directives. Citing the industry’s opposition to warning labels on food packets, the FSSAI has suggested a tabular declaration of the recommended daily requirement of added sugar, saturated fats and salt.

It was pointed out that the FSSAI’s affidavit only mentioned the food industry’s opposition but ignored evidence in favour of warning labels to help discourage consumption of foods high in added saturated fats, sugar and salt, submitted by civil society representatives.

In response, the Bench posed pointed questions to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Brijender Chahar, who was representing the Centre. The court asked whether the government was unwilling to take the necessary action and reiterated that the court’s order was clear.

The Bench also remarked that the government was facing immense pressure from large corporate entities and was “yielding to that pressure”. The court stated that it was taking this action in “public interest”.

Related News