The makers of an Indian film challenged the rules issued under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) requiring a static anti-tobacco health warning at the bottom of the screen during the time that tobacco products are displayed in the film. The filmmakers argued that the health warning would unnecessarily disturb the viewers’ attention and destroy the enjoyment of the movie. The court denied the filmmakers’ request, noting that granting a stay of the advertising rules would interfere with the government’s implementation of the rules. In particular, the court referred to another court decision ordering the government to rigorously implement the law and the rules promulgated under the law. However, the court noted that the filmmakers could ask the government to modify or delete the rules related to anti-tobacco health warnings in films.
Anurag Kashyap v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 119 of 2014, Bombay High Court (2014).
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.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
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.
"Having heard the learned counsel for some time, we are prima facie of the view that there is substance in the submission being made on behalf of the respondent-authority that grant of any interim or ad-interim stay of the operation of Rule 4(7)(c) or Rule 8(1)((c) would come in the way of the Central Government and the State Government implementing the provisions of 2004 Rules as amended from time to time and such interim or ad-interim order cannot be passed."
"Learned counsel submits that while the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned Rules may be considered at the time of final hearing, atleast direction (c) quoted above as well as the relevant impugned Rules being Rule 4(7)(c) and Rule 8(1)(c) are required to be stayed during pendency of the petition. Petitioners, without prejudice to rights and contention in this petition, are ready to comply with other Rules requiring the petitioners to give a strong editorial justification explaining the necessity of the display of the tobacco products or their use in the film, to the Central Board of Film Certification, anti-tobacco health spots, of minimum thirty seconds duration each at the beginning and middle of the films and an audio-visual disclaimer on the ill-effects of tobacco use, of minimum twenty seconds duration each, in the beginning and middle of the film and that should be considered sufficient safeguard for preventing illeffects of tobacco use. It is submitted that antitobacco health warning as a prominent static message at the bottom of the screen during the period of display of the tobacco products would unnecessarily disturb the viewers attention and destroy the enjoyment of the movie as a piece of art."
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 makers of an Indian film challenged the rules issued under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) requiring a static anti-tobacco health warning at the bottom of the screen during the time that tobacco products are displayed in the film. The filmmakers argued that the health warning would unnecessarily disturb the viewers’ attention and destroy the enjoyment of the movie. The court denied the filmmakers’ request, noting that granting a stay of the advertising rules would interfere with the government’s implementation of the rules. In particular, the court referred to another court decision ordering the government to rigorously implement the law and the rules promulgated under the law. However, the court noted that the filmmakers could ask the government to modify or delete the rules related to anti-tobacco health warnings in films.