Kerala Voluntary Health Services v. Union of India, et al.
Kerala Voluntary Health Services (Kerala VHS) sued the Union of India, et al. to enforce the provisions of India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA. Kerala VHS claimed that the Union of India, et al. had been negligent in enforcing COTPA as evidenced by the tobacco industry's facilitating smoking in films and engaging in sale of tobacco near educational facilities. The Court observed that Indian Constitution's right to freedom of speech and expression is circumscribed by the Constitution's right to life and found that provisions of COTPA had been violated. To remedy these violations, the Court imposed measures for compliance and appropriate implementation mechanisms for such measures.
Kerala Voluntary Health Services v. Union of India, et al., WP No. 38513, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (2012)
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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 claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
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.
"It is true that the indirect advertisement through films and other visual media resorted to by the national and multinational tobacco companies are having greater impact on the society. So, it is only just and proper that appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to prevent indirect advertisements in films and other visual media. It is also true that scenes depicting the use of tobacco and its allied products often appear in films and other visual media taking advantage of the leeways in the enactments. This can be curtailed only by proper enforcement of the provisions of the COPTA and its allied rules as well as the Cinematograph Act and the guidelines issued thereunder."
"Apart from being subjected to reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2), the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is also circumscribed by the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. We note with distress that the use of tobacco and allied products is spreading like cancer among the children and adolescents below the poverty line to which the majority of the population belong. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the smokers not only dig their own grave prematurely, but also pose a serious threat to the life of innocent non-smokers who get themselves exposed to environmental tobacco smoke thereby violating their right to life."
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.
Kerala Voluntary Health Services (Kerala VHS) sued the Union of India, et al. to enforce the provisions of India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA. Kerala VHS claimed that the Union of India, et al. had been negligent in enforcing COTPA as evidenced by the tobacco industry's facilitating smoking in films and engaging in sale of tobacco near educational facilities. The Court observed that Indian Constitution's right to freedom of speech and expression is circumscribed by the Constitution's right to life and found that provisions of COTPA had been violated. To remedy these violations, the Court imposed measures for compliance and appropriate implementation mechanisms for such measures.