Madras HC Upholds Micro/Nano Plastics Warning Labels On Packaged Water, Sugar And Salt [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a review application filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), along with recall petitions filed by the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association (FPDWMA), seeking to undo its interim order dated 06.02.2026 directing that packaged drinking water, sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging carry a label warning of possible micro/nano plastics, holding that the direction was neither premature nor disproportionate.

A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing Review Application No. 253 of 2026 and W.M.P. Nos. 32965 and 42413 of 2026 in W.P. No. 15120 of 2019, a continuing mandamus. By the order dated 06.02.2026, the court had noted that the FSSAI's analysis of commercially available bottled water collected from several States confirmed the presence of microplastics, and that sugar and salt packed in plastic or polythene packaging contained higher levels. Taking note of the Supreme Court's directions in 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, and while keeping the matter pending on the FSSAI's undertaking to place further studies on record, the court had directed the FSSAI to notify that PET water bottles carry a bold, red label of not less than font size 10 stating "This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics", and that sugar and salt in plastic packaging carry a corresponding label.

The court noted that PACE had earlier approached the Supreme Court and withdrawn its special leave petition with liberty to seek recall before the High Court, while the FSSAI had unconditionally withdrawn its own special leave petition on 18.05.2026 without seeking any liberty. Observing that the review application was not maintainable on the principles of withdrawal without liberty, with reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd., the bench nevertheless heard it on merits along with the recall petitions, considering that the case is a continuing mandamus.

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the FSSAI submitted that there is no conclusive scientific proof of harm to humans, that no country mandates such labelling, that the study does not establish that microplastics leach only from packaging, and that labelling could cause public panic and burden food business operators. The senior counsel for PACE relied on the World Health Organisation's report on microplastics in drinking water, the Bureau of Indian Standards specifications for PET containers, Section 18(1)(d) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Supreme Court's decision in Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India, contending that court directions cannot supplant the statutory authority and that premature labelling could push consumers towards other packaging. Counsel for the FPDWMA argued that, in the absence of any study showing that microplastics arise solely from containers, the label would convey incorrect information, as the water sources themselves may contain microplastics.

The amici curiae submitted that the FSSAI had been given repeated opportunities and had failed to perform its statutory duties, that informing consumers of what a product contains is the barest minimum that should have been done even before the court's directions, that the FSSAI's grounds had been rejected by the Supreme Court in the 3S and Our Health Society case, and that the concept of migration under the prescribed standards does not apply to microplastics, which are physically dispersed contaminants.

Rejecting the contentions, the bench held that the arguments on "unsafe food" did not merit consideration, since the court had neither declared the products unsafe nor expressed any opinion in that direction, and that the order directed only labelling. The court noted that the FSSAI, PACE and FPDWMA all admit the presence of micro/nano plastics in packaged water, sugar and salt, and observed that the core principle behind labelling is disclosure of the truth, adding that the arguments required "sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet because of a perceived commercial backlash."

Referring to the definitions of "hazard" and "risk" in Section 3(1) of the Act, the court held that micro/nano plastics are a physical agent with at least the potential to cause adverse health effects, and that there can be no dispute over a "plausible biological mechanism", with further studies being directed only to obtain definitive epidemiological proof. It held that hazard identification was complete, that the FSSAI is mandated under Section 16 to frame labelling standards but had not mandated the disclosure despite repeated directions, and that the argument of prematurity could not be countenanced.

On proportionality, the court held that Section 18 of the Act contemplates provisional risk-management measures where scientific uncertainty persists, and that Sections 18(1)(f) and 18(2)(e) require the public to be informed and consumers to be enabled to make informed choices. It noted that Parliament's choice of words, namely "potential" rather than "actual", "probable" rather than "certain" and "reasonable grounds to suspect" rather than "adequate proof", showed that the directions could not be termed disproportionate.

The court also rejected the argument that the microplastics may originate from the water source, noting that the manufacturers had not supported their claim of a foolproof filtering and packaging process with any test and that, irrespective of the source, the consumer should be informed if microplastics are found in the water inside the bottle. It further held that the absence of similar labelling in developed countries was no answer, citing conditions peculiar to India, including the reliance on packaged water, the climatic conditions of storage and use, counterfeiting and refilling, and India's PET consumption of about 1.9 million tonnes in 2024-25, of which bottles accounted for 92%.

The court clarified that its earlier order, passed "without causing any aspersions on safety or causing the least alarm", required only the barest essential minimum, and that the petitioners' contention that the human tolerance level should first be determined had become redundant. 

Holding that, even leaving aside maintainability and the absence of review grounds, it found the directions neither premature nor disproportionate, the court dismissed the review application and the recall petitions with no costs, while observing that the order remains subject to further hearing of all parties and the continuation of the studies. 

The connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Appearances:

For the FSSAI (Applicant in Review Application No. 253 of 2026): Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, for Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Aadhishankaran.

For PACE: Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel, for Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan.

For the FPDWMA: Mr. Harishankar, for Ms. Anusha Peri.

Amici Curiae: Mr. C. Mohan, Advocate; Mr. T. Mohan, Senior Advocate; Mr. M. Santhanaraman, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Balaji, Advocate; and Mr. Yogeshwaran.

Case Title: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India vs. G. Subramania Koushik & Ors., Review Application No. 253 of 2026 in W.P. No. 15120 of 2019 (2026:MHC:3978)

[Read Order]