Search Results Results 1-10 of 107
Plume Vapour Private Ltd. v. Union of India [India] [October 01, 2019]
Plume Vapor challenges the government's ordinance banning the sale of e-cigarettes and seeks a stay on the ban's implementation. The government asserts that a stay at this interim stage before affidavits and hearing is inappropriate. In an interim order, the Kolkata High Court refused to stay the ban, but stayed the requirement for sellers to prepare a list of their existing stock of e-cigarettes and submit such stock to authorities for disposal.
(Heard along with a similar challenge from Woke Vapors.)
Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives v. State of Karnataka [India] [August 27, 2019]
Council for Harm Reduced Alternatives (Council) challenged a June 15, 2016 Government of Karnataka circular that prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, trade, import, and advertisement of e-cigarettes. Public health group, Verve Foundation Trust, intervened. At an initial hearing, the court refused to stay implementation of the circular. In a subsequent hearing,
the court observed, " it is expressly clear that the petitioner which is . . . claiming to act in public interest is in fact espousing the cause of manufacturing units of ENDS." The court further stated that the petitioner has abused the court's jurisdiction and wants only to lift Karnataka's ban on e-cigarettes to ensure that manufacturing companies are benefited. Without ruling on the merits of the ban, the court accordingly dismissed the litigation and imposed costs on the Council in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Litejoy International v. Union of India [India] [July 11, 2019]
Litejoy International challenges a Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) order calling for enforcement of a Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Advisory instructing states to undertake a ban on the sale (including online sale), manufacture, distribution, trade, import and advertisement of e-cigarettes, among other products. On March 18, 2019, a single judge of the Delhi High Court stayed the DCGI order’s implementation, holding that e-cigarettes do not fall within the definition of a ‘drug’, as defined under section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
(Heard along with M/S Focus Brands Trading v. Directorate General of Health Services, W.P. (C) 2688/2019 and Piush Ahluwalia v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 2735/2019.)
M/S Marvelous Creations v. Deputy Commissioner of Customs [India] [May 08, 2019]
M/S Marvelous Creations (Marvelous) seeks release of a consignment containing such items as hookah flavorings, e-sheesha pens and e-liquid. The government retained these items because of Marvelous' failure to follow the procedures set out in the November 27, 2018 Drugs Controller General order calling for enforcement of an e-cigarettes ban. Marvelous asserted, however, that the November 2018 order had been stayed by the Delhi High Court and the government's retention of its consignment is due only to the pendency of this writ petition. The court ordered the release of Marvelous' consignment.
Doctors for You v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change [India] [April 12, 2019]
Doctors for You sought cigarettes and bidi butts to be declared toxic waste and to prohibit tobacco consumption in any form in all public places. The National Green Tribunal directed the Indian Institute of Toxicological Research, Lucknow (with expenses borne by the Central Pollution Control Board) to ascertain whether discarded butts are toxic waste and, if yes, to frame rules for waste management.
S. Suresh v. Union of India [India] [February 05, 2019]
S. Suresh, a media consultant for the Tobacco Free Kerala Campaign, seeks implementation of the Rules relating to point of sale advertising framed under COTPA Section 5. The court disposed of the matter, reserving Mr. Suresh's rights to file a new case that contained specific instances of violations of the Rules.
Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. Union of India [India] [January 19, 2019]
Manjinder Singh Sirsa requests the court to direct government authorities to prevent air pollution in restaurants and bars. Mr. Sirsa specifically alleges that hookahs contain hazardous substances and that the Delhi Pollution Control Committee should take action under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. By contrast, the government contends that hookahs are not hazardous. Noting that hookah is listed in the tobacco products schedule contained in India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, the court dismissed the matter, finding that it did not possess jurisdiction to hear the application as its jurisdiction extends only to environmental questions.
Piush Ahluwalia vs. Union of India [India] [November 04, 2018]
Piush Ahluwalia challenged the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare's August 28, 2018 ENDS advisory. The court dismissed the petition with the observation that the advisory is not binding.
State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan [India] [September 20, 2018]
The government appealed a Bombay High Court order that overturned police action prosecuting individuals for violations of the Maharashtra gutkha ban under the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court reversed the Bombay High Court's finding regarding Indian Penal Code (IPC) prosecution, noting that there is no prohibition on IPC prosecution merely because provisions in the Food Safety Standards Act prescribe penalties. The Supreme Court remanded consideration of specific IPC offenses against the individuals to the Bombay High Court.
Godfrey Phillips India Limited vs. Union of India [India] [August 31, 2018]
ITC and Godfrey Phillips India filed petitions in the Karnataka High Court challenging new 85% health warnings (dated April 3, 2018) that prescribed new images along with a quit line number. The tobacco companies asserted that the Government was not free to amend the Rules as the legality of related Rules (establishing 85% pack warnings) currently is pending in the Supreme Court. The Government maintains that the legality of the April 3rd pack warnings also was challenged in the Supreme Court, where the court refused to stay implementation, choosing instead to condense this matter with the review of the related 85% pack warnings. The Karnataka court refused to stay the April 3rd warnings, noting that using these new images would not constitute hardship to the tobacco companies as already 85% pack warnings are placed on packs.