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 manufacture pan masala (a form of smokeless tobacco) and challenged regulations that increased health warnings on the front of pan masala packages to 50% from 3 mm. The Petitioners argued that there was no scientific reason to justify the increase in the health warnings. The Petitioners also alleged that the increased warnings violated their right to display their trademarks on packages. The Respondent argued that the increase in the health warning was crucial for protecting public health and informing the public of the risk associated with the product, including oral cancer. The court relied on the WHO FCTC and the Article 11 Guidelines for Implementation in dismissing the petition and upholding the regulations in the interest of public health.