Mahesh Bhatt, et al. v. Union of India & Anr.

A well-known film director challenged the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare rules regarding tobacco products on television and in film.  The petitioner argued that the rule that, among other things, prohibits the display of tobacco products in films and television programs, is unconstitutional.  Kasturi and Sons (a Hindu newspaper in Madras) argued, among other things, that the rule requiring that brand names and logos of tobacco products be cropped in print and electronic media in certain circumstances is beyond the scope of the COTPA.  Noting that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situation is "pressing and the community interest is endangered," the Court held that the contended parts of the rule violated the Constitution and exceeded the power provided by COTPA to enact implementing rules.  

Mahesh Bhatt, et al. v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18761 of 2005, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (2009).

  • India
  • Jan 23, 2009
  • High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Kasturi and Sons Ltd.
  • Mahesh Bhatt

Defendant Union of India

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Smoking is a reality of life. It may be undesirable but it exists. It is not banned by any law. To shift the burden on the Director to justify such an act of smoking in the category of very rare cases where there is display or use of tobacco products due to compulsions of the script and they shall be supported by a strong editorial justification would be wholly unreasonable and violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The bar has been rightly extended in terms of Cinematograph Act, 1952 to scenes tending to encourage, justify or glamorize consumption of tobacco or smoking and not mere depiction of the act of smoking as it exists. A Director has to reflect real life positions where smoking exists. In certain persons and trades the habit of smoking is found to a greater degree. The undesirability of the act of smoking has nothing to do with the right of the Director as an artist to express what he so desires. It is not as if cinematographic films are to be filmed only with moral lectures as they are often reflective of the negative aspects of our society."