Ghoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Ghoi), a company that produces, stores, and sells gutkha, sued the Union of India, et al. challenging the State's government's March order prohibiting the use of tobacco in food products. Ghoi claims that prohibiting the sale of tobacco-mixed gutkha under the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions of Sales) Regulations 2011, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Ghoi further claims that pursuant to India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, the Government has no authority to ban the sale and use of gutkha. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that it did not possess jurisdiction to hear the matter as the challenged statutory provision only can be heard by the main Madhya Pradesh bench.
Ghoi Foods Private Limited v. UOI, WP No. 3131, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior High Court (2012).
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
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.
"From the aforesaid regulation, it is clear that no food product shall contain any substance of Tobacco and nicotine. In our opinion, the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner is not applicable in the present case because this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner in regard to vires of statutory provision and that can only be challenged at the Mean Seat. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the authority has rightly issued the order dated 31-03-2010 (Annexure P/1). If there is any grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner can challenge the vires of Regulations, 2011 because it is a statutory provision framed under the provisions of Act of 2006. Hence, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed."
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.
Ghoi Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Ghoi), a company that produces, stores, and sells gutkha, sued the Union of India, et al. challenging the State's government's March order prohibiting the use of tobacco in food products. Ghoi claims that prohibiting the sale of tobacco-mixed gutkha under the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions of Sales) Regulations 2011, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Ghoi further claims that pursuant to India's omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, the Government has no authority to ban the sale and use of gutkha. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that it did not possess jurisdiction to hear the matter as the challenged statutory provision only can be heard by the main Madhya Pradesh bench.