Should courts direct food-labelling norms when an expert regulator exists? Critically analyse.

In February 2026, the Madras High Court ordered that drinking water, sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging carry a bold red warning that they "may contain micro/nano plastics". In September 2026 it rejected FSSAI's plea to review that order [1]. The case tests whether courts should set labelling norms that the FSS Act, 2006 leaves to an expert regulator. The answer is yes, but only as a limited, stop-gap remedy.

Case for judicial direction

• Article 21 and informed choice: The court did not declare the products unsafe. It required disclosure so that consumers can decide for themselves [1].
• Regulatory vacuum: FSSAI began its project on micro/nano-plastics as "emerging food contaminants" only in March 2024. That project is still building test methods and exposure data [4], so no standard or label rule existed.
• Precautionary principle (Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum): scientific uncertainty is no excuse for inaction. WHO itself says data on nanoplastics is insufficient [3].
• Survived higher scrutiny: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by MoHFW and FSSAI in May 2026 [1].

Case against

• Institutional competence: Labels need toxicology, validated testing and thresholds, which is the regulator's domain. FSSAI argued that the court relied on a mere review of papers [1].
• Unsettled science: WHO (2019) found that microplastics in drinking water do not appear to be a health risk at current levels [2]. A warning with no limit may cause "public panic" [1].
• Limited usefulness: The label names no safe limit and no safer alternative for essential goods. It informs the buyer but does not guide them.
• Separation of powers: Separate orders from individual High Courts could fragment what should be one national food standard.

Assessment

• Courts should act as a backstop, not a first-line regulator. They should step in only when rights are at stake and the regulator has not acted.
• The remedy chosen was the least intrusive one: "may contain" is a factual statement, not a ban [1].

Judicial direction on labels is therefore justified as a proportionate, interim response to regulatory silence, but it cannot replace expertise. FSSAI should finish validating its test methods [4], set evidence-based limits and take ownership of labelling. It should also pursue WHO's advice to curb plastic pollution at the source [2]. This would uphold Article 21 and SDG 3 without judicial overreach.