The Madras High Court has refused to review or recall its earlier order directing disclosure of possible microplastics and nanoplastics in packaged drinking water, sugar and salt. The Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy passed the common order on September 28, 2026.
The Court was dealing with a review petition filed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), along with recall applications moved by the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment (PACE) and the Federation of All India Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Associations (FPDWMA).
Background
The dispute arose from the High Court’s February 6, 2026 order. At that stage, the Court had considered material placed by FSSAI showing the presence of microplastics in commercially available bottled drinking water collected from several States. Similar concerns were noted in relation to sugar and salt packed in plastic or polythene.
The February order directed that plastic/PET bottled water carry a declaration stating, “This water may contain Micro/Nano Plastics”, while packaged sugar and salt were to carry a similar disclosure. FSSAI was directed to issue the necessary notification and ensure compliance by manufacturers.
PACE and FPDWMA challenged the direction, arguing that scientific studies had not yet conclusively established the health effects of microplastics and that the labelling requirement was premature and disproportionate. FSSAI also argued that further scientific assessment was necessary before such regulatory action.
The Bench clarified that its earlier order had not declared packaged drinking water, sugar or salt to be unsafe food. According to the Court, the direction was confined to labelling and informing consumers about the possible presence of micro/nano plastics.
The Court relied upon the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, particularly provisions concerning risk assessment, risk communication and risk management. It observed that the law permits provisional measures where scientific uncertainty continues, provided such measures are proportionate and subject to review.
The Bench further held that the labelling direction was intended to enable consumers to make an informed choice. It observed:
“The above order was passed only to enable consumers to make an informed choice. The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 3S and Our Health Society’s case (cited supra) guides us and the Order passed is in tune with the same. 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 Court held that there was no sufficient ground to review or recall the February 6, 2026 order. It clarified that the order would remain subject to further hearings and continuation of scientific studies on the issue.
The review petition and the miscellaneous petitions seeking recall were dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected petitions were closed.
