Crusade Against Tobacco & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Crusade Against Tobacco sought to enforce the smoke free provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA) with respect to hookah parlors. In May 2011, the Court ordered Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to incorporate COTPA's terms and conditions when issuing licenses to food establishments. In response, BMC issued a circular which, among other things, included a condition that smoking areas in restaurants shall not be used for purposes other than smoking and "no other services or any apparatus designed to facilitate smoking shall be provided." Subsequently, several hookah bar owners impleaded as party respondents and argued that such conditions cannot be incorporated into existing licenses. The bar owners also argued that designated smoking areas (which COTPA allows under certain circumstances) should not be treated as public places and thus should be open for the owner to provide hookah and other services to facilitate smoking. The Court referenced Article 47 of the Constitution, which requires the State to improve public health generally, and held that BMC had the authority to impose new conditions to existing licenses and that owners cannot provide services to patrons in the designated smoking areas.
Crusade Against Tobacco & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., PIL 111 of 2010, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (2011).
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.
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
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 last submission that the impugned conditions are violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, need not detain us long since the impugned conditions provide what is mandated by the Central Statute and Rules and are in the nature of reasonable restrictions. Article 19 (1) (g) permits imposition of a reasonable restriction on the ground of protection of the interests of the general public. Article 47 of the Constitution contains a Directive Principle of the State Policy and provides that the State shall regard the improvement of public health as amongst its primary duties."
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.
Crusade Against Tobacco sought to enforce the smoke free provisions of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act (COTPA) with respect to hookah parlors. In May 2011, the Court ordered Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to incorporate COTPA's terms and conditions when issuing licenses to food establishments. In response, BMC issued a circular which, among other things, included a condition that smoking areas in restaurants shall not be used for purposes other than smoking and "no other services or any apparatus designed to facilitate smoking shall be provided." Subsequently, several hookah bar owners impleaded as party respondents and argued that such conditions cannot be incorporated into existing licenses. The bar owners also argued that designated smoking areas (which COTPA allows under certain circumstances) should not be treated as public places and thus should be open for the owner to provide hookah and other services to facilitate smoking. The Court referenced Article 47 of the Constitution, which requires the State to improve public health generally, and held that BMC had the authority to impose new conditions to existing licenses and that owners cannot provide services to patrons in the designated smoking areas.