Ceylon Tobacco Company Ltd., et al. v. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, et al.
Tobacco companies sued government officials, challenging a clause of the tobacco control law that would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places. The clause, based primarily on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), was put into place after observations about the harmful effects of "passive smoking." The Court stated that exposure to tobacco smoke, which would necessarily result from smoking in public places, is undoubtedly harmful to public health and a law could be validly enacted to prevent such exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed public places. Thus, the provision is constitutional.
Ceylon Tobacco Company Ltd., et al. v. Hon. Nimal Siripala de Silva, et al., S.C.(SD) App. Nos.1 to 6/2006, The Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialists Republic of Sri Lanka (2006)
Sri Lanka
Jun 20, 2006
The Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialists Republic of Sri Lanka
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.
Measures restricting tobacco sales to or by minors, as well as other retail restrictions relating to point-of-sale, candy and toys resembling tobacco products, vending machines, or free distribution.
(See FCTC Art. 16)
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 claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
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.
"In this background there would be no basis to any general challenge of the contents of clause 40 intended to prohibit smoking in enclosed public places. The restriction comes well within the ambit of Article 16(7) of the Constitution which permits restrictions by law of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed, inter alia, by Articles 12 and 14, for "the protection of public health". Exposure to tobacco smoke as envisaged in the WHO (FCTC) or "passive smoking" in common parlance which would necessarily result from smoking in public places is undoubtedly harmful to public health and a law could be validly enacted to prevent such exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed public places."
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.
Tobacco companies sued government officials, challenging a clause of the tobacco control law that would prohibit smoking in enclosed public places. The clause, based primarily on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), was put into place after observations about the harmful effects of "passive smoking." The Court stated that exposure to tobacco smoke, which would necessarily result from smoking in public places, is undoubtedly harmful to public health and a law could be validly enacted to prevent such exposure to tobacco smoke in enclosed public places. Thus, the provision is constitutional.