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).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
A discussion on cultural attitudes around tobacco, specifically that tobacco use is an accepted part of the culture.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"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."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
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.