TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Dr. M. Yaqoob Bhatti v. Chairman Medical Research Council, et al.

The plaintiff claimed that televised cigarette commercials violated his constitutional rights and sought a total ban of such television commercials.  The Court dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the ban because the petitioner had failed to properly ground his request upon one or more of the fundamental rights detailed in the Constitution.  The Court noted that the fundamental rights alluded to by the petitioner, including the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the prohibition on deprivation of life and liberty except in accordance with law, were not applicable to this matter.

Dr. M. Yaqoob Bhatti v. Chairman Medical Research Council, et al., H.R. Case No. 101 of 1992, پاکستان کے سپریم کورٹ [Supreme Court of Pakistan] (1994).

  • Pakistan
  • Feb 23, 1994
  • Supreme Court of Pakistan (پاکستان کے سپریم کورٹ)
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Dr. M. Yaqoob Bhatti

Defendant

  • Chairman, Medical Research Council
  • Three others

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Action against Government to Advance the Public Interest
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
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.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

View Limitations
1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by