Introduction:
In a significant ruling between Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik & Ors.1 addressing consumer awareness and food safety, the Madras High Court has upheld its earlier directions requiring precautionary labelling on plastic/PET-bottled drinking water and sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging, indicating the possible presence of microplastics and nanoplastics. The decision highlights the importance of consumer disclosure, particularly where scientific research has identified potential health concerns but the precise extent of the associated risks remains under investigation.
Division Bench, in its order dated 28 September 2026, declined to review its earlier order dated 6 February 2026. The Court rejected the objections raised by FSSAI and the concerned industry associations that the labelling requirements were premature, disproportionate and unsupported by conclusive scientific evidence.
Examining the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly Sections 16 and 18, the Court emphasised that scientific uncertainty does not necessarily preclude precautionary measures intended to protect consumer interests. The ruling reinforces the statutory importance of risk communication and informed consumer choice, while recognising that further scientific assessment remains necessary to determine the precise health implications of exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics.
Background of the Dispute
The proceedings arose from Writ Petition No. 15120 of 2019, during which the Madras High Court examined concerns surrounding environmental contamination and the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in commonly consumed food products.
During the proceedings, FSSAI placed material before the Court confirming the detection of microplastics in commercially available packaged drinking water collected from different States, including Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra, as well as Chandigarh. The material also indicated higher levels of microplastics in sugar and salt packaged in plastic or polythene materials.
Although FSSAI acknowledged the presence of these particles, it maintained that further scientific studies were necessary to conclusively establish their harmful effects on human health, the quantities that could be tolerated by the human body and the precise consequences of prolonged exposure.
Taking note of the available studies and the ongoing scientific investigation, the High Court issued interim directions on 6 February 2026 requiring plastic/PET-bottled drinking water and sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging to carry disclosures regarding the possible presence of microplastics and nanoplastics.
The Court specifically directed that the labels contain the following declarations:
For drinking water sold in plastic/PET bottles
“This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics”
For sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging
“This Sugar/Salt may contain Micro/Nano Plastics”
The directions prescribed a minimum font size of 10, bold red lettering, and required the concerned authorities, including FSSAI, to issue an appropriate notification within four weeks from receipt of the website-uploaded order. FSSAI was also directed to communicate the labelling requirements to manufacturers and ensure their enforcement.
The directions were subsequently challenged by FSSAI, the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE), and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations.
Challenge to the Labelling Directions
FSSAI and the industry associations principally contended that the interim directions were premature and disproportionate to the scientific evidence available.
FSSAI submitted that, although studies had identified microplastics in packaged drinking water, conclusive scientific evidence establishing the risks associated with the detected levels remained unavailable. It further argued that the particles could originate from water sources or other environmental factors rather than solely from plastic packaging.
The regulator maintained that food safety measures must be evidence-based, proportionate and carefully formulated after considering their implications for consumers, manufacturers and supply chains. According to FSSAI, mandatory warnings at an inconclusive stage could create unnecessary public concern and adversely affect legitimate commercial activity.
PACE and the packaged drinking water manufacturers also relied upon existing Bureau of Indian Standards specifications and the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018, and Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020. They submitted that their products complied with the applicable regulatory framework and that no existing regulation expressly prescribed the disputed microplastics declaration.
Reliance was further placed on Section 18(1)(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which requires provisional regulatory measures to remain proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than necessary to achieve an appropriate level of health protection.
The associations also questioned whether judicial directions should precede the completion of FSSAI's scientific assessment and regulatory process.
Court's Observations and Legal Reasoning
Disclosure Does Not Amount to Declaring Food Unsafe
At the outset, the High Court clarified that its earlier directions did not declare packaged drinking water, sugar or salt to be unsafe for human consumption.
The Court distinguished between a determination that food is unsafe and a requirement to disclose the possible presence of a contaminant. While the former would require further consideration of scientific evidence and the applicable statutory standards, the latter concerned the consumer's access to relevant information.
The Court observed that the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics was not disputed by FSSAI and the industry associations. In its view, the unresolved scientific questions surrounding their precise health effects did not eliminate the need for disclosure.
The Bench therefore rejected the argument that the labelling requirement necessarily had to await conclusive findings concerning the extent of harm caused by microplastics.
Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle
A central aspect of the judgment concerns the distinction between an identified potential hazard and conclusive proof of injury.
The Court examined Section 3(1)(u) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which defines a hazard by reference to a biological, chemical or physical agent in food having the potential to cause adverse health effects. It also considered Section 3(1)(zm), under which risk involves the probability and severity of an adverse health effect arising from a food hazard.
Drawing upon scientific literature referred to during the proceedings, the Court noted concerns relating to possible gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, reproductive, neurological and other physiological effects of microplastics and nanoplastics. Importantly, the judgment recognised that several of these potential consequences remain subjects of scientific investigation and that definitive causal relationships have not been established in all respects.
The Court reasoned that the statutory framework does not require every aspect of a potential health risk to be conclusively established before an appropriate precautionary measure may be considered.
In particular, Section 18(1)(c) expressly contemplates provisional risk-management measures where available information identifies the possibility of harmful health effects but scientific uncertainty persists.
The judgment therefore treats the precautionary framework as a means of addressing identified concerns during scientific investigation, rather than requiring regulatory authorities to remain inactive until every uncertainty has been resolved.
Consumer Information as a Statutory Obligation
The High Court placed considerable emphasis on the obligation to communicate relevant information to consumers.
Referring to the statutory concepts of risk assessment, risk communication and risk management, the Court observed that risk communication forms part of the broader regulatory process and need not necessarily await its final conclusion.
The Bench also relied upon Section 16, which addresses FSSAI's functions concerning food safety standards, including labelling, and Section 18(1)(f), which provides for public communication of health risks where reasonable grounds exist to suspect that food may present such a risk.
Further, Section 18(2)(e) requires the regulatory framework to protect consumer interests and provide a basis for informed choices concerning food consumption.
The Court considered these provisions sufficient to reject the proposition that a disclosure requirement was necessarily premature merely because scientific research remained ongoing.
The underlying distinction was between warning consumers that a product is proven harmful and informing them that it may contain particles whose possible health implications are under investigation.
Proportionality and Commercial Considerations
The Court also rejected the contention that the prescribed labelling requirements imposed a disproportionate burden on manufacturers.
Section 18(1)(d) requires provisional measures to be proportionate, having regard to health protection, trade restrictions and technical and economic feasibility. The Bench examined this requirement alongside the statutory provisions permitting precautionary action and requiring consumer information.
It reasoned that its earlier directions imposed a limited disclosure obligation rather than prohibiting the manufacture, sale or consumption of the products concerned. The Court considered the requirement to disclose possible contamination to be a restrained measure intended to preserve consumer choice while scientific investigation continued.
It also declined to accept the absence of similar labelling requirements in other countries as a sufficient justification for withholding information in India. The Bench referred to differences in packaged drinking water consumption, climatic conditions, storage practices and patterns of PET bottle usage.
In the Court's assessment, these considerations reinforced the need to examine the issue within India's own statutory and consumer-protection framework rather than treating international regulatory practices as determinative.
Review Jurisdiction and Finality of Proceedings
An additional issue before the Court concerned the maintainability of FSSAI's review application.
FSSAI had previously approached the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 6 February 2026 but subsequently withdrew its Special Leave Petition unconditionally on 18 May 2026, without seeking liberty to pursue further remedies before the High Court.
By contrast, PACE had withdrawn its Special Leave Petition on 6 April 2026 with express liberty to approach the High Court through an appropriate recall or modification application.
The High Court distinguished these circumstances and held that FSSAI's review application was not maintainable in light of its unconditional withdrawal of the earlier proceedings. In reaching this conclusion, the Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd.2, concerning the finality of litigation and the consequences of withdrawing a challenge without pursuing it.
Nevertheless, considering the continuing nature of the writ proceedings and the recall applications filed by the industry associations, the Court proceeded to examine FSSAI's submissions on their merits as well.
Decision of the High Court
The Madras High Court ultimately found no justification to review or recall its earlier order dated 6 February 2026. The Bench held that the labelling directions neither constituted a declaration that the products were unsafe nor imposed an unreasonable restriction on the manufacturers. Instead, they represented a limited disclosure measure intended to enable informed consumer choice pending further scientific investigation.
The Court further clarified that the proceedings would continue, that FSSAI would undertake further examination of the relevant scientific issues, and that the concerned industry associations would have an opportunity to participate in subsequent hearings.
Accordingly, by its order, the Court dismissed Review Application No. 253 of 2026 and the connected recall petitions, without costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
The February 2026 labelling directions were therefore left undisturbed by the September 2026 order, subject to further hearings and consideration of scientific studies in the continuing proceedings.
Significance of the Judgment
The decision carries important implications for food safety regulation, product labelling and consumer protection in India. First, it reinforces the distinction between scientific certainty and precautionary disclosure. The absence of conclusive evidence establishing the precise degree of harm does not necessarily prevent regulatory intervention where available material identifies a potential health concern.
Second, the judgment highlights the importance of informed consumer choice within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It recognises that disclosure of potentially relevant information may serve a distinct regulatory purpose without amounting to a definitive finding that a product is unsafe.
Third, the ruling demonstrates that proportionality under Section 18 must be assessed in the context of the measure actually imposed. A limited disclosure requirement may be justified in circumstances where more restrictive measures would require additional scientific assessment.
For food business operators, particularly those involved in packaged drinking water and plastic-packaged food products, the decision highlights the importance of monitoring judicial directions, emerging scientific evidence and regulatory developments concerning packaging-related contamination.
However, the judgment should not be interpreted as establishing that all PET-packaged products are unsafe or that microplastics have been conclusively proven to cause every health consequence discussed in the scientific literature. Nor does it finally determine the permissible levels of microplastics or the ultimate regulatory framework governing their presence in food.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court's decision in Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik & Ors. reinforces the principle that consumer protection need not await the complete resolution of scientific uncertainty. By upholding the precautionary labelling directions, the Court recognised disclosure as an important component of food safety regulation, distinct from a final determination of whether a product is unsafe.
The ruling brings together the statutory principles of risk communication, proportionality and informed consumer choice under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While leaving the scientific assessment and further regulatory consideration open, it affirms that the possible presence of contaminants may warrant consumer disclosure even as research into their precise health implications continues.
The judgment therefore marks an important development in the interpretation of India's food safety framework, placing informed consumer choice at the centre of precautionary regulatory action.
Footnotes
1 Review Application No. 253 of 2026 & W.M.P.Nos.32965 and 42413 of 2026 in W.P.No.15120 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.42260 of 2026
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2046
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
