Madras HC mandates disclosure Of Microplastics in Food Packaging

Mandating a revolutionary shift in consumer transparency, the Madras High Court has upheld its directive requiring food manufacturers to explicitly label packaged water, salt, and sugar with warnings about microplastic contamination. The Court rejected arguments of commercial backlash, ruling that the right to an 'informed choice' under food safety laws overrides industry concerns regarding scientific uncertainty or potential supply chain disruptions.

A bench comprising Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the order while hearing a review petition filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) alongside recall applications by the Pet Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association (FPDWMA). The petitions challenged an interim order dated 06.02.2026, which directed specific red-colored bold labeling for products containing microplastics.

Duty Of Disclosure And Risk Communication

The Madras High Court observed that the FSSAI, PACE, and FPDWMA do not deny the presence of micro/nano plastics in packaged water, sugar, or salt. The bench noted that once a physical agent is identified as a potential hazard, the principle of disclosure must prevail. Strengthening its stance on labelling of microplastics in food packaging, the Madras HC emphasized that "If something is present inside, it would be mandatory to disclose it on the label. The core principle behind levelling is disclosure of information/truth. The arguments require sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet because of a perceived commercial backlash."

The Madras High Court further highlighted that under Section 18(1)(f) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the authority is mandated to inform the general public of the nature of the risk to health when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a risk. It dismissed the contention that such labels are premature, stating that the law uses terms like 'potential' and 'probable' rather than requiring absolute certainty of harm before acting.

Directions on Microplastics Disclosure in Food Packaging

The Madras High Court has issued the following directions: 

"(i) The respondents including the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), are directed to issue appropriate notification that all the plastic/PET bottles selling water should contain the label of not less than the font size of 10, in bold, in red colour letters stating that 'This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics' and similarly the sugar and salt that are sold in plastic packaged material stating that 'This Sugar/Salt may contain Micro/Nano Plastics'; 

(ii) The said notification shall be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the website uploaded copy of this order; 

(iii) The FSSAI shall also issue directions to all the manufacturers/appropriate persons to include the above labeling requirements in labels of their products and enforce the same scrupulously;"

Background

The litigation arose from a writ petition concerning environmental and health hazards in The Nilgiris. During proceedings, FSSAI reports confirmed microplastics in bottled water and plastic-packaged salt and sugar across several states. On 06.02.2026, the Court issued interim directions for labeling. Aggrieved, PACE and FSSAI approached the Supreme Court via Satheesh V.K. Vs Federal Bank Ltd. ( "2025 SCC OnLine SC 2046": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 564) and 3S and Our Health Society Vs. Union of India & Anr. respectively, but later withdrew their petitions to seek relief from the High Court.

The industry associations argued that the labeling was disproportionate and that no other country mandates such warnings. They cited Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital v. Union of India & Ors. ( "(2011) 2 SCC 485": 2011 CaseBase(SC) 143) to argue that the Court should not supplant statutory authorities like FSSAI. However, the Madras High Court distinguished the Indian context, noting the unique PET usage and climatic conditions in India. It relied on the principles discussed by the Supreme Court in 3S and Our Health Society Vs. Union of India & Anr. regarding public health, concluding that the interim directions were the "barest essential minimum" to ensure public safety while further studies continue.

Case Details:
Case No.: Review Application No.253 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3978
Case Title: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Vs. G.Subramania Koushik and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI for Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, SPC assisted by Mr.K.Aadhishankaran; Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel; Mr.Harishankar
For the Respondent(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI for Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, SPC; Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 24541