Indian Dental Association of U.P. State and Another v. State of U.P. and Another
The Indian Dental Association sued the State of Uttar Pradesh in an effort to reduce the production, sale and consumption of pan masala and to restrict the use of tobacco in pan masala, also known as gutkha. The Court noted arguments made by the State government: (1) There are no restrictions on the consumption of pan masala in the Food Safety and Standards Act, and thus the State government cannot impose restrictions on this product; (2) The Government is considering placing restrictions on the use of pan masala mixed with tobacco, including gutkha. In this order, the Court discusses the addition (and briefing schedule) of various intervenors and a respondent, the Union of India.
Indian Dental Association of U.P. State and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, PIL No. 19126, Allahabad High Court (2012).
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.
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.
"The learned AGA submits that the petitioner appears to be praying for two reliefs. One, there should be absolute restriction on the production, sale and consumption of pan masala. Two, that there be a restriction on the use of tobacco in pan masala,(sometimes also described as gutka). So far as the first relief is concerned, as no restrictions have been placed on the consumption of pan masala, in the Food Safety and Standards Act, the same cannot be imposed by the State government. However he submits that so far as the prayer for the second relief, for placing restrictions on the use of pan masala mixed with tobacco (including gutka), the matter is under serious consideration of the State government. However he prayed that the case be listed on 1.8.2012 to enable the State government to inform the Court about the steps being taken for imposing the necessary restrictions. A short counter affidavit filed by the State Government today is taken on record. We are pleased to note this positive response of the State government to this issue which is of grave concern to the health of our populace."
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.
The Indian Dental Association sued the State of Uttar Pradesh in an effort to reduce the production, sale and consumption of pan masala and to restrict the use of tobacco in pan masala, also known as gutkha. The Court noted arguments made by the State government: (1) There are no restrictions on the consumption of pan masala in the Food Safety and Standards Act, and thus the State government cannot impose restrictions on this product; (2) The Government is considering placing restrictions on the use of pan masala mixed with tobacco, including gutkha. In this order, the Court discusses the addition (and briefing schedule) of various intervenors and a respondent, the Union of India.