LANGUAGE

Country: India

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-10 of 86

J. Anbazhagan v. Union of India [India] [April 26, 2018]

J. Anbazhagan, a member of the legislative assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu, filed a writ petition to highlight the illegal manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala in the state and to urge the High Court of Madras to order an independent investigation into the matter. Mr. Anbazhagan alleged such sales were carried out in collusion with several high dignitaries and bureaucrats, such as central excise officials, central government officials, officials from different state governments, including the Government of Tamil Nadu, councilors of the Chennai Corporation, and officials of the food safety department, among others. The Court observed that it was compelled to take up the case as the issues involved the right to health and directed that the Central Bureau of Investigation investigate the matter, since, among other reasons, central government officials allegedly were involved.  In response to arguments made by the respondents, the Court also clarified that the definition of “food” under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety Act includes any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and that the definition undoubtedly was wide enough to include gutka, and other forms of chewable tobacco/nicotine products intended for human consumption. The Court further clarified that India’s omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, and the Food Safety Act were not in conflict, but were meant to be read in conjunction with each other as COTPA does not contain a non-obstante clause that excludes operation of other laws.

Health for Millions Trust v. Union of India [India] [January 08, 2018]

Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings.  The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders.  Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal.  The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.  Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter.  After months of hearings, a two judge bench of the Karnataka High Court struck down the 2014 rules, and the Government and public health groups appealed the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Karnataka High Court order and set final disposal of the matter for March 12, 2018. The Court stated: "[W]e are inclined to think that health of a citizen has primacy and he or she should be aware of that which can affect or deteriorate the condition of health. We may hasten to add that deterioration may be a milder word and, therefore, in all possibility the expression ‘destruction of health’ is apposite." India’s 85% graphic health warning rules accordingly remain in effect for now.

Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India [India] [December 15, 2017]

Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings.  The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders.  Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal.  The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.  Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter.  The Supreme Court identified pending pack warning challenges in courts throughout India (more than 27 in number) and transferred these cases to Karnataka. After months of hearings, a two judge bench of the Karnataka High Court struck down the 2014 rules. One judge found the rules illegal, holding that the Ministry of Health did not possess authority to act unilaterally. Both judges found the rules to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

Central Arecanut Marketing Company v. Union of India [India] [September 23, 2016]

This order was one among a series of intermediary orders issued by the Supreme Court of India in a public interest litigation addressing non-compliance with a ban on manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala with tobacco and/or nicotine under the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, 2011. The amicus curiae in this matter observed that 23 States and five Union Territories had prohibited the manufacture and sale of such products.  Notwithstanding the ban, however, the amicus noted that manufacturers were flouting the prohibition by selling separate pouches of pan masala and flavored chewing tobacco together, meaning for the pouches to be mixed as one.  The Supreme Court directed that representatives of the States and Union Territories that had not prohibited the manufacture and sale of such smokeless products indicate why they had not taken action.  The Court also directed that all States and Union Territories representatives file affidavits regarding their total compliance with the ban before the next date of hearing.

Sherfudeen v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare [India] [August 01, 2016]

Individual, A. Sherfudeen, requested that the Madras High Court direct the Central Government to notify and give effect to  Section 7 (5) of India’s omnibus tobacco control law.  Mr. Sherfudeen claimed that there were several different kinds of tobacco products available in the market and that more than 45% of the Indian population (during the period when the petition was filed) were still using tobacco daily, with or without knowing its ill-effects.  The Court directed the Central Government to provide information regarding when they propose to notify the provision.

M/s Omkar Agency v. Food Safety & Standards Authority of India [India] [July 19, 2016]

In the Patna High Court, smokeless tobacco manufacturers challenged a Food Safety Commissioner order prohibiting the sale of zarda, pan masala and gutka under Section 30(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (“Food Act”). The manufacturers alleged that the prohibition was not permissible as such products were permitted for sale under India’s omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA. The manufacturers also alleged that they were not food business operators under the Food Act and, therefore, were  not required to submit to the Act’s requirements. The Court struck down the prohibition, observing, among other things, that:  (1) gutka and tobacco (generally), are not food as the Food Act does not prescribe standards for their manufacture, sale or distribution; (2) while pan masala is food, the Commissioner did not rely on objective evidence (which he/she must do under the Food Act) to issue the blanket prohibition on all brands of pan masala, whether or not they contain tobacco; (3) tobacco is not food and, therefore, cannot be regulated by the Food Act; and (4) since COTPA, which is a central law, permits the manufacture and production of tobacco and tobacco-based products, smokeless products cannot be banned altogether, and such a prohibition, therefore, amounts to excessive delegation of executive power.

Pranvesh v. Union of India [India] [June 30, 2016]

A University of Allahabad student filed a writ petition alleging the unabated sale of tobacco to minors and adults in the city of Allahabad. The High Court of Allahabad found that temporary and permanent shops located near schools and other public institutions were making such sales. The Court also found that certain tobacco manufacturers presented misleading information about their products in print and visual media and failed to comply with the requirement for pictorial warnings on tobacco products.  The Court passed the following directions: (1) that all temporary/permanent establishments selling tobacco within a 100 yard radius of educational institutions be removed; (2) that all temporary/permanent establishments selling tobacco within 500 meter radius of the High Court and the District Court be removed; (3) that the sale of tobacco to persons seated in parked cars on roads and road sides be stopped; and (4) that strict action be taken against tobacco manufacturers who violate the requirement for compulsory statutory warnings on their products.

S. Cyril Alexander v. Union of India [India] [June 22, 2016]

Cyril Alexander, a tobacco control advocate, filed a public interest lawsuit requesting that the government exclude tobacco companies from the corporate social responsibility (CSR) requirements mandated by Indian law in order to prevent the companies from earning goodwill. The court directed the government to determine how tobacco companies can best meet their CSR obligations and to take appropriate action within four months of the decision. Not satisfied that the government had undertaken the court's requested actions, Mr. Alexander filed a contempt petition. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that a May 2016 government circular clarifies that tobacco industry CSR shall not contravene India's omnibus tobacco control law. Although Mr. Alexander maintained that his request seeks a general prohibition on tobacco industry CSR, the court held that such a request cannot be the subject matter of the contempt petition. 

Karnataka Beedi Industry Association v. Union of India [India] [May 04, 2016]

Using the powers conferred by India’s omnibus tobacco control law, the government introduced new graphic health warnings in October 2014 that, among other things, increased the graphic health warning size from 40 percent of one side to 85 percent of both sides of tobacco product packaging and amended the rotation scheme of the warnings.  The Karnataka Beedi Industry Association, the Tobacco Institute of India, and other pro-tobacco entities challenged the validity of the 2014 pack warning rules in five cases in the Karnataka High Court – Bengaluru, and the court initially stayed the implementation of the warnings via interim orders.  Following a petition by tobacco control advocates, the court lifted the stays, and a division bench of the court affirmed the decision on appeal.  The association and others challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court.  Paving the way for immediate implementation of the warnings, the Supreme Court, on May 4, 2016, directed that the matter be decided within six weeks in the Karnataka High Court by a bench constituted by the Karnataka Chief Justice and that any stays of the warnings in other high courts not be given effect until the conclusion of the matter.  The Supreme Court identified pending pack warning challenges in courts throughout India (more than 27 in number) and transferred these cases to Karnataka. 

Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India [India] [March 11, 2016]

The Union of India and Health For Millions filed an interim application seeking vacation of the High Court’s December 4, 2015 stay (and January 6, 2016 modification) of a 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  They alleged that a May 2009 Supreme Court order in a pack warnings matter (W.P. 549/2008) still pending before the Supreme Court directed that no court in India may pass orders inconsistent with the May 2009 order and that this May order was not considered in the High Court’s December 4, 2015 ruling.  The Karnataka Beedi Association and others maintained that the May 2009 Supreme Court order pertains to implementation of the 2008 pack warning rules and not the October 2014 rules.  They argued that the order thus cannot be relied upon in this matter.  Noting, among other things, that Health For Millions has filed an application for rigorous enforcement of the 2014 rules in W.P. 549/2008, the court observed that the May 2009 Supreme Court order is applicable to the writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court as issues relating to both the 2008 and 2014 rules are before the Supreme Court.  For this reason, the court held that the December 4, 2015 stay of the 2014 pack warnings rules must be lifted.  The Karnataka Beedi Association and others appealed, arguing that the constitutional validity of neither the 2008 nor the 2014 rules was at issue in the Supreme Court.  Instead, they maintain that the Supreme Court was adjudicating a writ of mandamus for the rules’ implementation.  Accordingly, the association argues that the high court must review the constitutional validity of the rules.  The high court disagreed and upheld the judge’s order lifting the stay.  The court also invited the association to approach the Supreme Court for further clarity so that the court can proceed further in these matters.