TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Godawat Pan Masala v. Union of India

Smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other associated entities challenged several state orders banning the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution of pan masala and gutkha for varying times.  In its decision, the Supreme Court found that only the central government can ban food either by parliamentary action or by rules promulgated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Food Act).  The Court found that that the states do not possess the power to ban – even if the states invoke provisions of the Food Act.  The Supreme Court also maintained that it could not agree with petitioners’ contention that pan masala and gutkha are not food.  The Court quashed the state orders.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Godowat Pan Masala and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Appeal No. 4674 of 2004 , Supreme Court (2004).

  • India
  • Aug 2, 2004
  • Supreme Court

Parties

Plaintiff Godawat Pan Masala and Ors.

Defendant Union of India and Ors.

Legislation Cited

Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

None

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 Freedom of Expression
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Ultra Vires Regulation
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.

Type of Tobacco Product

Smokeless tobacco products
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.
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.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by