Petitioners are hookah bar owners who challenged the State of Karnataka’s notification dated February 7, 2024, banning the sale and use of hookah in public places, including hookah bars. The Petitioners argued that the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003) was promulgated by the Central Government and therefore, the State of Karnataka could not issue a ban on hookah because the product is regulated under COTPA 2003. The Court found that the act of providing the hookah instrument (including the base, pipe, coal, etc.) constituted a “service” which is banned by the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (prohibiting service in a smoking area or space provided for smoking). The Court also considered the health harms posed by hookah and held that it is within the State’s power to ban the sale and use of hookah to protect public health under Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
Bharath et al. v. State of Karnataka, High Court of Karnataka, Writ Petition No.4461 of 2024
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 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.
A single or multi-stemmed instrument for vaporizing and smoking flavored tobacco (shisha or sheesha) or other products in which the vapor or smoke is passed through a water basin ‒ often glass-based ‒ before inhalation. Water pipes are known by a variety of names such as hookah, huqqah, nargilah, nargile, arghila, and qalyan.
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 learned counsel for the impleading applicants have produced enormous materials along with pictures to demonstrate that hookah which is permitted by this Court in plethora of orders is to be in a corner, designated corner/area, but are now being done in complete floors. Designated corner has become the entire floor. Pictures are produced of the restaurants, which are not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. What is defended is that they are selling herbal hookah or no other service is rendered. To quote an illustration a brand called ‘Aafreen’ is being sold as herbal hookah. It is titled flavoured hookah molasses. Different kinds of flavours are sold which are all hookah molasses. As observed hereinabove, molasses is a prohibited product and it is being freely sold. Hookah smoking has projected a health hazard which is equivalent to smoking 100 cigarettes. A complete puff of hookah taken in using a water-pipe is equivalent to 100 cigarettes. Herbal hookah, as observed hereinabove, is a storehouse of carbon monoxide which is poisonous. With all these being in public domain, it is ununderstandable as to why the State had kept quiet all these days to leave these places to mushroom into hundreds. It is averred that there are about 800 hookah places/hookah bars in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, they have been completely unregulated till today."
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.
Petitioners are hookah bar owners who challenged the State of Karnataka’s notification dated February 7, 2024, banning the sale and use of hookah in public places, including hookah bars. The Petitioners argued that the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003) was promulgated by the Central Government and therefore, the State of Karnataka could not issue a ban on hookah because the product is regulated under COTPA 2003. The Court found that the act of providing the hookah instrument (including the base, pipe, coal, etc.) constituted a “service” which is banned by the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places (Amendment) Rules, 2017 (prohibiting service in a smoking area or space provided for smoking). The Court also considered the health harms posed by hookah and held that it is within the State’s power to ban the sale and use of hookah to protect public health under Article 47 of the Constitution of India.