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.
Indian Dental Association of U.P. State and Another v. State of U.P. and Another, PIL No. 19126 (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.
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.
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.
"For all these reasons the U.P. State Government may now consider the appropriateness of restricting the consumption, sale and distribution of tobacco and nicotine in food products on the same lines as the M.P. Government or The Chief Secretary, U.P. may through the appropriate Secretary show cause before this Court by the next date fixed as to why such a direction imposing the aforesaid
restrictions may not be issued by this Court for enforcement of Regulation 2.3.4 prohibiting the use of tobacco and nicotine as an ingredient in any food product."
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, 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.