Indian Dental Association of U.P. State and Another v. State Of U.P. and Another
In a further development of this case, the court recognizes the directions of the Federal government requiring the state of U.P. to place restrictions on the sale and distribution of “pan masala” or “gutka” that contains tobacco. Here the court recognizes the State’s failure to implement the required restrictions and the existence of similar restrictions, with court approval, in other Indian states. The court demands implementation of the regulations within 14 days and threatens to issue a mandamus demand to the state government and the food business operators if the regulations are not implemented.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. - 19126 of 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.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
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.
"The sincerity and commitment of the U.P. government to care for the health of its citizens by restricting the use of "gutka" and "pan masala" containing tobacco which is a health hazard is under examination now. It should be recalled that earlier on 23.5.2012 the learned Advocate General had informed this Court that prohibiting the sale of "gutka" was under consideration of the State government, even though banning 'pan masala without tobacco as an ingredient was not being contemplated. This statement by the Advocate General was noted with approval in our order of the said date. But contrary to this instead of putting a ban on the manufacture and sale of the product, the State government has even lowered the tax so as to facilitate increased sale of this product in the State of U.P. We have already expressed regret over this development in our order dated 10.9.12. The learned Advocate General however sought to contend that although there is no doubt about the highly deleterious nature of "gutka," but only the Central government can put a restriction on its use. As mentioned above by issuing Regulation 2.3.4 in exercise of its powers under section 92 of the Food Safety Act, read with section 26 it is the Central government which has imposed a prohibition on the addition of tobacco and nicotine to food products, and the manufacture, sale and distribution of "gutka" which is a product containing 'pan masala' with tobacco as an ingredients would thereby fall within the interdict. Regulation 2.11.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulation prescribing standards for "pan masala" makes it clear that it is a food product."
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.
In a further development of this case, the court recognizes the directions of the Federal government requiring the state of U.P. to place restrictions on the sale and distribution of “pan masala” or “gutka” that contains tobacco. Here the court recognizes the State’s failure to implement the required restrictions and the existence of similar restrictions, with court approval, in other Indian states. The court demands implementation of the regulations within 14 days and threatens to issue a mandamus demand to the state government and the food business operators if the regulations are not implemented.