A public interest lawsuit requested that cigarette manufacturers and the Indian government comply with the provisions of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) regarding tar and nicotine levels. Specifically, the law requires manufacturers to provide the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes on the label. The law also requires the government to set maximum permissible limits for tar and nicotine, which are also to be displayed on cigarette packs. The court said that it did not have the power to compel the government to implement this provision of the law, even though the government had failed to set maximum tar and nicotine levels for cigarettes in the 11 years since the law was adopted. Instead, the court banned the sale of cigarettes in the State of Uttarakhand, effective one year after the date of the decision. The court said that the ban will not take effect if the government prescribes maximum nicotine and tar limits and manufacturers provide this information on their labels. Additionally, the court ordered that all loose cigarettes must be sold with the specified warning label on the cigarette or the packaging, effective six months from the date of the decision.
Dharmendra Kansal v. Union of India & others, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 37 of 2014 (2014).
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
The WHO FCTC Guidelines are not mandatory for Parties and merely suggest policies, or a discussion on the effect of the Guidelines on national legislation.
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.
"As pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, we are bereft of any power of directing the Central Government to discharge its obligations under Section 7(5) of the Act and to enforce the said Section of the Act. On top of that, it has been brought to our notice that a petition, filed to make it mandatory for tobacco companies to specify tar and nicotine contents on every pack of cigarettes, has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though by a one-line order. Hence, it would not be appropriate on our part to pass such an order. Further, in view of categoric assertion in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 to the effect that nicotine and tar is harmful even in small quantity and there is no safe level for nicotine and tar contents, there is no scope of our asking the Central Government to prescribe the maximum permissible limit of nicotine and tar contents of each cigarette. In such situation, there remains nothing to monitor. But then, despite knowledge of the fact that the manufacturers and sellers of cigarettes are merchants of death, should we do nothing? Are we so useless and incompetent to protect even the right of life of the citizens and would be idle spectator of sale of death for financial gain by a few?
We think that, inasmuch as no tobacco is produced in the State and no cigarette is manufactured in the State, it would be imperative on our part to ensure that cigarettes are not sold in the State, inasmuch as, our writ is enforceable within the State. In this petition, we are dealing only with cigarettes and have already granted leave to the petitioner to reapproach the Court in relation to other tobacco products when necessary particulars are collected. Therefore, our writ will only apply to cigarettes alone and to no other tobacco product. The question is, whether we can do so and, if we do so, whether that would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not think that a merchant of death can take shelter under Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the other merchants of death are spared as they are not answerable to the petition. In the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, no attempt has been made to bring on record of the Court that it is possible to achieve a safe level of nicotine and tar contents of cigarettes. They know that even a small quantity of nicotine and tar contained in cigarettes is harmful and, ultimately, brings death."
"The Parliament depended upon the Central Government to fulfill its afore-mentioned desire, which the Central Government has failed to achieve despite passage of more than 11 years from the date of enactment of the Act.
Even on 21st February, 2014, the Central Government informed the Parliament that it is still taking steps to perform its duties entrusted upon it by the Parliament by enacting the Act. It though reported that there is no internationally accepted standard of any minimum (safe) or maximum permissible limit of nicotine and tar contents in tobacco products; but, still then, it gave an impression to the Parliament that it is taking steps to achieve the same....
It is true that the present trend of FCTC is not in favour of labelling tobacco constituents as that of tar and nicotine. ... [T]he present trend in FCTC or steps taken by Brazil, Canada and Australia have nothing to do with the protection to which the Indian citizens are entitled to from the menace of cigarette manufacture, sale and distribution."
"As aforesaid, despite knowledge of the fact that tobacco industry does not contribute anything to the Indian society and, on the other hand, kills people; the Act did not contemplate prohibition of production, sale, supply and distribution of poison dealt with in the form of cigarettes and other tobacco products. The Act contemplated regulation of production by making it mandatory to prescribe maximum permissible limit of nicotine and tar contents of each cigarette and, as the case may be, of each tobacco product and to indicate the same on such cigarettes or other tobacco products or on its label. The question is, why such a step was taken by the Parliament. The legislative mind is required to be gathered from the enactment, the reasons for the enactment as well as the object intended to be achieved by the enactment. In the background of what had been considered while introducing the Bill, the name given to the Act, the object sought to be achieved thereby and the words used in Section 7(5) of the Act, make us believe that the Parliament, at the time of enacting the Act, despite being supplied with the information that tobacco kills and does not contribute anything to the Indian society, was of the view either (i) that it is possible to set down a limit of nicotine and tar contents of each cigarette or, as the case may be, of other tobacco products, which will make consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products safe; or (ii) that such prescription will make the consumer aware that thus far, and no further, cigarettes and other tobacco products are safe."
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.
A public interest lawsuit requested that cigarette manufacturers and the Indian government comply with the provisions of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) regarding tar and nicotine levels. Specifically, the law requires manufacturers to provide the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes on the label. The law also requires the government to set maximum permissible limits for tar and nicotine, which are also to be displayed on cigarette packs. The court said that it did not have the power to compel the government to implement this provision of the law, even though the government had failed to set maximum tar and nicotine levels for cigarettes in the 11 years since the law was adopted. Instead, the court banned the sale of cigarettes in the State of Uttarakhand, effective one year after the date of the decision. The court said that the ban will not take effect if the government prescribes maximum nicotine and tar limits and manufacturers provide this information on their labels. Additionally, the court ordered that all loose cigarettes must be sold with the specified warning label on the cigarette or the packaging, effective six months from the date of the decision.