Petitioner objected to rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theaters, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services on the grounds that the required imagery is “distasteful, gross [and] graphic.” The court dismissed the petition, finding that the required warnings are in the public interest as it is the "duty of the State to take steps to ensure that health of the people is protected." The court also warned that the petition was a "gross abuse of the process of law" and warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
Divyam Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2023:DHC:7145, High Court of Delhi (2023).
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.
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
(See FCTC Art. 13)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"With a view to deter people from smoking tobacco and tobacco products, the Government of India has brought in advertisements to educate people about the ill effects of tobacco and tobacco products. The graphic description given in these Government issued advertisements which, according to the Petitioner, are gross and graphic imagery, are in fact meant to be eye-openers for the people not to use tobacco and tobacco products and is, therefore, in public interest. The purpose of display of distasteful, gross, graphic anti-tobacco imagery in the health spots played during the screening of movies and TV programmes is only to make people aware of the ailments and ill-effects of consuming tobacco and tobacco products and to show them what tobacco can do to their health. 12. It is the duty of the State to take steps to ensure that health of the people is protected. The present Writ Petition is a gross abuse of the process of law. Off late, this Court is seeing that Public Interest Litigation, which was actually a tool for providing voice to the voiceless, is being used to achieve private gains and the present Writ Petition is also one such Petition which has been backed by the tobacco industry lobby to prevent the Government from creating awareness against tobacco, which, as stated earlier, is the sole cause responsible for a number of ailments among men and women."
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.
Petitioner objected to rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theaters, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services on the grounds that the required imagery is “distasteful, gross [and] graphic.” The court dismissed the petition, finding that the required warnings are in the public interest as it is the "duty of the State to take steps to ensure that health of the people is protected." The court also warned that the petition was a "gross abuse of the process of law" and warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.