When Regulators Need a Push from the Supreme Court

By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation # When Regulators Need a Push from the Supreme Court ### What FSSAI's food-labelling reversal tells us about regulatory accountability in India In September 2026, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India told the Supreme Court that it is now willing to warn consumers about a packaged food that is high in even **one** nutrient of concern — sugar, salt or saturated fat — rather than waiting until a product crosses thresholds on two of the three. It took a pointed bench and a looming deadline to get there. ## Regulatory Development at a Glance | Field | Details | |---|---| | Matter | Front-of-pack nutrition labelling for packaged foods | | Court | Supreme Court of India | | Bench | Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran | | Key hearing | 10 September 2026 | | Next hearing | 28 September 2026 (suggestions to be filed by parties) | | Regulator | Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) | ## The Core Issue FSSAI had proposed red hexagonal warning labels, but only for products exceeding limits in **two of three** nutrient categories, with stricter norms to follow in a later phase. Health advocates argued this let genuinely unhealthy products through the first, more urgent round of warnings. The Supreme Court pressed FSSAI to justify the two-phase approach. FSSAI's revised position — trigger a warning on even a single nutrient, from day one — is a meaningful shift. But it also raises an uncomfortable question: **why did it take direct judicial pressure to get there?** ## Why This Pattern Matters Beyond Food Safety FSSAI is not an isolated case. Across sectors, courts have repeatedly had to correct, clarify or accelerate regulatory action that Parliament had already entrusted to specialised bodies: - **RERA:** In *Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.* (2021) and *Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna* (2021), the Supreme Court had to clarify homebuyers' remedies and appeal rights years after RERA authorities were established — because the statutory promise of speedy redress wasn't being delivered on the ground. - **Telecom:** In *Cellular Operators Association of India v. TRAI* (2016), the Court struck down TRAI's call-drop compensation regulation as ultra vires, holding it failed to balance consumer interest against the statute's own purpose — a reminder that even consumer-friendly rules must be properly reasoned and authorised. - **Banking:** In *State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal* (2023), the Court read natural justice into RBI's fraud-classification framework, holding that borrowers must get a hearing before an account is tagged fraudulent — because that label carries serious civil consequences. - **Insurance:** In *Jacob Punnen v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.* (2021), the Court held that an insurer cannot silently tighten policy terms at renewal without informing the policyholder — reinforcing that regulatory protections mean little if insurers can quietly narrow them. - **Securities:** In the Sahara proceedings, the Supreme Court directed SEBI, as the expert regulator, to examine the funds raised through certain securities and oversee a refund mechanism under judicial supervision. None of this suggests bad faith. It suggests **institutional inertia** — bureaucratic delay, competing stakeholder pressure, caution around economically significant decisions — that repeatedly needs a judicial push to overcome. ## The Larger Structural Problem Regulatory uncertainty hurts consumers and businesses at the same time. A consumer stays exposed to an unsafe or unfair practice. A business, meanwhile, cannot confidently redesign a product, amend a contract or invest in compliance while the regulatory destination itself remains unsettled. Small and medium enterprises absorb this cost far less easily than large corporations. The goal, then, isn't simply *more* regulation. It's **regulation that is evidence-based, time-bound and predictable** — so that both consumers and honest businesses know where they stand. ## What Better Regulation Would Look Like - **Time-bound decision-making** — indicative timelines from issue identification to final rule, with delays explained publicly. - **Public dashboards** — showing pending proposals, consultation status and reasons for delay. - **Judicial-direction compliance reports** — a visible trail of what a court ordered, what's been done, and what's pending. - **Outcome reporting** — regulators publishing results ("complaints on this issue fell by X%"), not just activity counts ("we issued 14 circulars"). ## PRAN's Perspective PRAN believes the FSSAI episode is a useful lens on a wider governance gap — one where courts are doing work regulators were already empowered to do. ### 1. Independence and accountability are not opposites A regulator can remain independent of political and commercial pressure while still being answerable for delay. One doesn't require sacrificing the other. ### 2. Consumers shouldn't need to litigate systemic problems Individual consumers rarely have the resources to force regulatory action through the courts. When enforcement depends on repeated litigation, protection becomes available mainly to those who can afford to fight for it. ### 3. Predictability serves businesses too A compliant business benefits as much from a clear, timely rule as a consumer does from a safe product. Uncertainty is a cost neither side should have to bear. ## Conclusion The Supreme Court's intervention in the FSSAI matter is more than a dispute about food packaging — it's a reminder that India's regulatory bodies must be able to convert their statutory mandates into timely, enforceable outcomes without waiting for a court to insist on it. Regulators remain essential to a modern economy. But regulatory power has to be matched, consistently, by regulatory responsibility. --- **Disclaimer:** This article is intended for legal awareness and public policy discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not suggest that any regulator named above has acted unlawfully or in bad faith; each matter should be assessed against its own statute, facts and judicial record. For more legal-policy analysis and consumer rights advocacy, visit: **PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation** www.publicrightaction.org #ConsumerRights #FSSAI #RegulatoryAccountability #SupremeCourt #RERA #FoodSafety #PublicPolicy #AccessToJustice #PRAN #LegalAwareness ## हिंदी सार खाद्य सुरक्षा प्राधिकरण (FSSAI) ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के दबाव के बाद पैकेज्ड फूड पर चेतावनी लेबल की अपनी नीति को सख्त करने पर सहमति जताई है — अब किसी एक भी हानिकारक तत्व (चीनी, नमक या वसा) की अधिकता पर चेतावनी लगेगी, न कि दो या अधिक तत्वों की। यह मामला दिखाता है कि कैसे रियल एस्टेट, बीमा, बैंकिंग और दूरसंचार जैसे कई क्षेत्रों में नियामकों को अपना काम पूरा करने के लिए बार-बार अदालत का सहारा लेना पड़ता है। PRAN Foundation का मानना है कि नियामकों की स्वतंत्रता बनाए रखते हुए भी उन्हें समयबद्ध और जवाबदेह बनाया जाना जरूरी है, ताकि उपभोक्ताओं और ईमानदार व्यवसायों दोनों को स्पष्टता मिल सके।