Indian Dental Association of U.P. State and Another v. State Of U.P. and Another
The Indian Dental Association, a public interest group, brought a case seeking to compel the U.P. state government to enforce the ban on tobacco and nicotine in food products, particularly in gutka and pan masala. The group argued that regulations, passed by the Central government under the Food Safety and Standards Act, which banned the use of tobacco and nicotine in food products should be enforced by the U.P. government. The court held that the U.P. government should enforce the regulations or show cause before the court why they are not enforcing the ban against tobacco in food products.
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.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
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.
The Indian Dental Association, a public interest group, brought a case seeking to compel the U.P. state government to enforce the ban on tobacco and nicotine in food products, particularly in gutka and pan masala. The group argued that regulations, passed by the Central government under the Food Safety and Standards Act, which banned the use of tobacco and nicotine in food products should be enforced by the U.P. government. The court held that the U.P. government should enforce the regulations or show cause before the court why they are not enforcing the ban against tobacco in food products.