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 Consumer Interest Protect Forum, sought a mandamus order requiring the Ministry of Health to enforce the Tobacco Products (Control and Regulation) Act (2011) and its Directives requiring graphic health warnings.
The government had delayed the implementation of the Directives due to a related mandamus application brought by the tobacco company Surya Nepal Pvt., This related mandamus application alleged that the requirement of 75% coverage of health warning messages on packages of products (as required by the Tobacco Products (Control and Regulation) Act and its Directive) contravened Article 11 of the WHO FCTC.
The Supreme Court held that the government had an obligation to enforce the Directives and ensure implementation of Section 9 of the Tobacco Products Act. The Court held that the government’s obligation also required it to enforce the Directive against Surya Nepal Pvt, even while its related mandamus application was pending. Drawing on examples from other countries with larger minimum size requirements, including Canada and Sri Lanka, the Court rejected Surya Nepal Pvt.’s argument that a 75% minimum size contravened Article 11 of the WHO FCTC. The court repeatedly emphasized that smoking was injurious to public health and that colorful packages and pictures were harmful due to their effects on consumption.
The Supreme Court issued a mandamus order compelling the Ministry of Health to remove the contravening tobacco products from the market, without delay.