New Delhi, April 6 The Supreme Court on Monday refused to intervene in the Madras High Court order, which directed that all plastic/PET bottles and packaging used for selling water, salt, and sugar should bear a label stating that these food items "may contain micro/nano plastics".
"There is nothing wrong in displaying the warning," observed a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
"The government may be delaying, but the high court is very clear on this matter, as reports have suggested the presence of micro plastics... It is important to inform the public," the bench said.
Noting that it is a consumer-driven market, the court said that people have already started reducing their use of plastic, including water bottles.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the PET Packaging Association for Clean Environment, challenging a February 2026 order of the Madras High Court.
The High Court had directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and others to issue a notification that all plastic/PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles used for selling water should bear the label in bold red letters stating that "this water may contain micro/nano plastics".
It had also said that similarly, sugar and salt sold in plastic-packaged material should also bear the label stating that "this sugar/salt may contain micro/nano plastics".
The High Court had asked the FSSAI to issue directions to all manufacturers/appropriate persons to include the above labelling requirements on their products and to strictly enforce them.
It had said that the notification should be issued within four weeks from the date of receipt of the website-uploaded copy of its order.
During the hearing on the petition, the apex court observed that the matter was pending before the High Court.
The counsel for the petitioners said that the warning may cause panic.
Justice Nath observed, "People are checking and reducing the use of plastic bottles. There is nothing wrong in displaying the warning."
The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition with the liberty to approach the High Court, which was allowed by the Supreme Court bench.