Madras High Court refuses to recall order to disclose microplastics in packaged water, sugar, salt

The Madras High Court recently refused to recall an interim order directing the addition of labels to bottled drinking water and packaged salt and sugar to disclose that such products may contain microplastics [FSSAI Vs PET].

A Bench of Justices N Sathish Kumar and D Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected a review petition filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and recall applications filed by industry bodies against the February 6 interim order directing that such products to carry warning labels.

The Court rejected arguments that the introduction of such mandatory disclosure labels should be put off until the FSSAI completes its assessment of the actual risk posed by microplastics to human beings.

The Court held that a disclosure that bottled water and packaged sugar or salt "may" contain microplastics is a bare minimum measure to help consumers make informed choices.

"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... the review/recall petitioners' contention as to how far human beings can withstand and tolerate micro/nano plastic particles should be first determined becomes redundant... we see no reason or ground to review or recall the order dated 06.02.2026," the Court said.

The Court passed the order after noting that the FSSAI, the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations did not dispute the presence of micro or nano plastics in packaged water, sugar or salt.

“If something is present inside, it would be mandatory to disclose it on the label. The core principle behind levelling [labelling] is disclosure of information/truth," the Court held.

The Bench was particularly critical of the argument that such warnings could adversely affect businesses.

“The arguments require sweeping inconvenient facts under the carpet because of a perceived commercial backlash," it said.

In February, the High Court had directed that plastic or PET bottles selling water should carry, in at least font size 10 and bold red letters, the statement, “This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics.”

Sugar and salt sold in plastic packaging were similarly required to carry warnings that they may contain micro or nano plastics. FSSAI was directed to notify manufacturers and enforce the requirement.

The direction followed material showing that microplastics had been detected in commercially available bottled water collected from Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra. Higher levels were also reported in sugar and salt packed in plastic or polythene.

In their review/ recall pleas, FSSAI and the industry bodies argued that the direction was premature and disproportionate since scientific evidence had not conclusively established the harmful effects of microplastics or the quantity humans could safely tolerate.

It was also argued that the particles detected in bottled water may have originated from the water source rather than the PET container.

The Court rejected this distinction in its September 28 ruling.

“In any event, irrespective of the source, if micro/nano plastics are found in the water inside the bottle, the consumer should be informed," it said.

The Bench clarified that it had not declared packaged drinking water, sugar or salt to be unsafe. Its earlier order was confined to disclosure of the possible presence of microplastics, while further studies continued on the actual risk posed by such substances.

Relying on the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Court also noted that provisional risk-management measures can be adopted where possible harmful effects have been identified, even though some scientific uncertainty remains.

“The words are ‘potential’ and not ‘actual’; ‘probable’ rather than ‘certain’; and ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ rather than ‘with adequate proof’.”

It therefore held that the labelling direction could not be termed disproportionate.

The Court also referred to scientific literature concerning the movement of micro and nano plastics through biological barriers. It noted reports of the particles being detected in placental samples and breast milk although it also acknowledged that definitive proof of particular health effects was still under study.

“There can be no dispute over the ‘plausible biological mechanism’. Further studies are on, only in respect of the ‘definitive epidemiological proof’ to confirm various harmful effects ... If such particles cross the placenta and become part of the developing embryo, the situation is indeed grim," the Court added.

The Court further rejected the argument that other countries had not imposed similar labelling requirements and that the introduction of such measures in India alone could create unnecessary alarm.

The Bench, in its analysis, pointed to India's reliance on bottled water, climatic and storage conditions, and problems such as counterfeiting and refilling.

“Therefore, this is a grave and important concern for our country, and no comparison can be made with other countries," it held.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the FSSAI's review plea as well as the recall applications filed by industry bodies, adding,

"The order, however, will be subject to further hearing of all the parties and continuation of the studies in this regard."

Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan appeared for FSSAI

Senior Advocate Sathish Parasaran represented PACE.

Advocate Harishankar appeared for the packaged drinking water manufacturers' association.

Advocates C Mohan, T Mohan, M Santhanaraman and Rahul Balaji assisted the Court as amici curiae.

[Read Judgment]