The plaintiff, Crusade Against Tobacco, an Indian NGO, filed a public interest litigation against the Government of India, alleging the lack of enforcement and compliance with the conditions on smoking areas required for obtaining an “eating house” license. The said conditions have been incorporated by a circular, the legality of which was upheld in a previous decision. Following the Central Government Act regarding restaurant licenses, the high court affirmed that contravening the terms and conditions of the license could lead to prosecution and punishment for each offence with fines. Further, the court held that officers mentioned in the Central Government Act were competent to punish and collect fines, in case of violation of the said conditions, from owners or any other person in charge of the restaurant with smoking areas.
Crusade Against Tobacco v. Union of India, et al., PIL-111.sxw, High Court of Judicature at Bombay Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (2011).
Office Memorandum dated 27 July 2011 of Government of India in Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding the serious consequences of smoking or chewing tobacco
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 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.
"Accordingly, the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai shall enforce conditions including condition Nos. 35 to 37 incorporated or deemed to have been incorporated in the licenses for Eating Houses and lodge necessary prosecutions. We further direct that when such prosecutions are lodged by the Municipal Corporation Mumbai, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate shall take up such cases for hearing and decide them within two months from the date of institution of the complaints. We also find that the provisions of Smoking Rules 2004 provides that the Authorized Officer mentioned in Schedule 3 of the Rules is competent to act and compound the offences committed under Section 4 of the COPT Act, 2003."
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 plaintiff, Crusade Against Tobacco, an Indian NGO, filed a public interest litigation against the Government of India, alleging the lack of enforcement and compliance with the conditions on smoking areas required for obtaining an “eating house” license. The said conditions have been incorporated by a circular, the legality of which was upheld in a previous decision. Following the Central Government Act regarding restaurant licenses, the high court affirmed that contravening the terms and conditions of the license could lead to prosecution and punishment for each offence with fines. Further, the court held that officers mentioned in the Central Government Act were competent to punish and collect fines, in case of violation of the said conditions, from owners or any other person in charge of the restaurant with smoking areas.