The Madras High Court has refused to recall its microplastics label order, holding that consumers must be told when packaged drinking water, sugar and salt may contain micro or nano plastics.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a review application filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and two recall applications moved by industry bodies against its interim order of February 6, 2026, which requires plastic and PET water bottles, and sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging, to carry a label stating that the contents may contain micro/nano plastics [Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik].
A Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, in a common order pronounced on September 28, 2026, held that the labelling direction was neither premature nor disproportionate under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and saw “no reason or ground to review or recall” the February order. The Bench made no order as to costs.
Background of the case
The directions were issued in a 2019 writ petition filed by G. Subramania Koushik, which the Madras High Court is hearing as a continuing mandamus. As recorded in paragraph 2 of the common order, the court had noted, after considering a report filed by FSSAI, that analysis of bottled drinking water collected from Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra had confirmed the presence of microplastics, and that sugar and salt packed in plastic or polythene contained higher levels of them.
Taking note of the directives of the Supreme Court in 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, and keeping the matter pending on FSSAI‘s undertaking to place further studies on record, the court directed in paragraph 17 that water bottles carry, in bold red letters of not less than font size 10, the words “This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics”, with a similar line for sugar and salt. FSSAI was to issue the notification within four weeks and direct manufacturers to comply.
The PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) withdrew its special leave petition before the Supreme Court on April 6, 2026 with liberty to seek recall here, while FSSAI withdrew its own petition unconditionally on May 18, 2026 and then filed the review. The Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations (the Federation) filed the second recall application.
The Bench observed in paragraph 7 that the review was not maintainable on the principles of withdrawal without liberty and merger, relying on the Supreme Court‘s ruling in Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd. Since the case is a continuing mandamus and the recall pleas were being heard on merits, it heard the review on merits as well.
What the applicants argued
Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan, appearing for FSSAI, argued that labelling must be proportionate and evidence-based to avoid public panic, that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm, that the particles may come from the water source rather than the packaging, and that no country requires such a label.
Senior Counsel Sathish Parasaran, for PACE, relied on a World Health Organisation report and Bureau of Indian Standards container specifications, invoked Section 18(1)(d) of the Act, under which measures must be no more restrictive of trade than necessary, and contended that the court cannot supplant the statutory regulator. Counsel Harishankar, for the Federation, argued that the label would misinform the public when no study shows the particles come solely from containers.
The amici curiae supported the order, pointing to the Supreme Court‘s orders in the 3S and Our Health Society case rejecting FSSAI‘s plea that labelling should await further studies, and to the regulator’s failure to perform its statutory duties.
How the court read the Food Safety and Standards Act
The Bench first clarified that it had not declared packaged water, sugar or salt to be unsafe food, and that its order directs only labelling.
It recorded that FSSAI, PACE and the Federation all admit the presence of micro/nano plastics in these products, and held:
“If something is present inside, it would be mandatory to disclose it on the label.”
“The arguments require sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet because of a perceived commercial backlash.”
Turning to the statute, the court read Section 3(1)(u), which defines a “hazard” as an agent with the potential to cause an adverse health effect, and Section 3(1)(zm), which defines “risk” as the probability of such an effect. Micro/nano plastics, it held, have at least that potential, and no applicant claimed the apprehended effects were improbable. Reading Section 3(1)(zo) to (zq), it found the hazard already identified and risk communication part of the whole process. On prematurity, it said:
“Further, under Section 16 of the Act, FSSAI is mandated to frame labelling standards. However, FSSAI has not mandated the disclosure of information on the label, despite repeated directions of this Court to come up with the measures. Therefore, the argument that the directions are premature cannot be countenanced.”
On proportionality, the Bench turned to Section 18, under which provisional risk-management measures may be adopted where the possibility of harm is identified but scientific uncertainty persists. It noted that Section 18(1)(f) requires the public to be informed of the nature of a risk to health and that Section 18(2)(e) protects the consumer’s informed choice, before holding:
“The words are ‘potential’ and not ‘actual’; ‘probable’ rather than ‘certain’; and ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ rather than ‘with adequate proof’. Thus, the directions cannot be termed as disproportionate.”
The court also rejected the source-water argument, noting that the manufacturers had not backed their claim of foolproof filtering with any test:
“In any event, irrespective of the source, if micro/nano plastics are found in the water inside the bottle, the consumer should be informed.”
Rejecting the comparison with developed countries, where tap water is potable, the Bench noted that bottled water in India is bought in crates and dominates weddings and travel, with India consuming about 1.9 million tonnes of PET in 2024-25, 92% of it as bottles, and called the issue a grave concern for the country.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Quashes FSSAI Order On Red Bull’s ‘Energy Drink’ Label, Cites No Hearing
Outcome
The Bench described the February direction as the minimum needed at this stage:
“Thus, only after considering the conspectus of facts, the order dated 06.02.2026, without causing any aspersions on safety or causing the least alarm, ordered only the barest essential minimum, namely informing the consumer that the food may contain micro/nano plastics.”
“Dehors the question of maintainability or absence of grounds of review stricto sensu, still, on an elaborate and open reconsideration of the issue, we do not find the directions premature or disproportionate. The order, however, will be subject to further hearing of all the parties and continuation of the studies in this regard. Therefore, we see no reason or ground to review or recall the order dated 06.02.2026.”
The review petition and the recall applications were dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed (para 38). FSSAI remains under direction to carry out further studies, and both industry associations, already impleaded, will be heard on all issues as the matter continues (para 11).
Why The Microplastics Label Order Matters
Section 18 of the Food Safety and Standards Act lets regulators adopt provisional, proportionate measures where a possible health risk is identified but the science is unsettled. The Bench treated a plain disclosure on the label as the least intrusive such measure, and kept it apart from any finding that the food is unsafe, which it expressly declined to make.
In practical terms, the February 6, 2026 labelling directions stand, subject to further hearings and the studies FSSAI must carry out. The order also signals that a party which withdraws its special leave petition without liberty will struggle to reopen the same order through review.
Case Title: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India v. G. Subramania Koushik [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]
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3978
Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy
Date of Order: September 28, 2026 (reserved September 7, 2026)
Appearances: Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, ASGI, for Mr. V. Chandrasekaran, SPC, assisted by Mr. K. Aadhishankaran, for FSSAI (and respondents 29, 30 and 33); Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel, for Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan, for PACE; Mr. Harishankar for Ms. Anusha Peri, for the Federation; Amici Curiae: Mr. C. Mohan, Mr. T. Mohan, Senior Advocate, Mr. M. Santhanaraman and Mr. Rahul Balaji