Ceylon Tobacco v. Minister of Health

The Sri Lanka Ministry of Health passed a regulation requiring tobacco products to contain graphic pictorial health warnings on 80% of the pack.  The Ceylon Tobacco Company challenged the regulation as ultra vires the authority of the ministry and sought an interim order to stop the implementation of the regulation until their substantive challenge was concluded.  Here the Court of Appeal denied the tobacco company’s request to delay implementation of the regulation.  The court found the regulation was sufficiently clear for implementation.  The court said the timeline of the regulation provided sufficient time for implementation and the balance of convenience supported the Minister.

Ceylon Tobacco Company PLC v. Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health et. al. C.A. Application No.336/2012

  • Sri Lanka
  • Feb 22, 2013
  • Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka

Parties

Plaintiff Ceylon Tobacco Company PLC

Defendant

  • Dr. Nihal Jayathilaka, Secretary, Ministry of Health
  • Hon. Maithripala Sirisena, Minister of Health
  • National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The only other argument put forward by the Petitioner is that it is impossible for the Petitioner to comply with the requirements of the said regulation. Firstly, the Petitioner submitted that there is insufficient time for them to comply with the said regulation. In fact, the regulation was published on the 8th of August 2012, and the Petitioner was aware of its application from that date, and the said regulation will only be coming into operation on the 1st of March 2013. In those circumstances the Petitioner cannot claim that the Petitioner was not given adequate notice for the Petitioner to comply with the said regulation. Further, the Petitioner complains that certain requirements made in the said regulation cannot be fulfilled by the Petitioner due to lack of clarity, in particular, the 80% space that has to be covered in the package and the toxic contents that has to be included in the package. These matters have been clarified by the Minister, the 1st Respondent, by publishing an amended regulation, the said amended regulation was also published by Gazette notification dated 15th February 2013. This amended regulation facilitated the Petitioner and answers his concern in relation to the impossibility of complying with the said regulation and, in those circumstances this Court is of the view that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the Petitioner and there is no material to show that irreparable or irremediable mischief that would be caused to the Petitioner if an interim order is not issued in the given circumstances. Therefore, this Court refuses to issue an interim order, as prayed for, by the Petitioner in this Application."