M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. State of Marharashtra
The court rejected the gutkha industry's prayer for an interim stay of the State of Maharashtra's gutkha and pan masala ban. Among other things, the court noted that the dangerous effects of smokeless tobacco products on public health justify the ban and found that the this was not a fit case to issue interim relief.
(Heard along with Ghodawat Foods Pvt. Ltd, v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1632 of 2012; Rajnandini Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1633 of 2012; SDD Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1634 of 2012; M/s. Hira Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1635 of 2012; Rajat Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 7592 of 2012; and M/s. MSS Food Processors v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 8800 of 2012)
M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. State of Marharashtra, W.P. 1631 of 2012, High Court of Judicature, Bombay (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.
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 voluminous reports and material placed by the respondents as well as the intervenor on record establish the dangerous effects of gutka, pan masala (having as their ingredients tobacco or nicotine or magnesium carbonate) on public health, which justify the complete prohibition on manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of gutka and pan masala."
"We find considerable substance in the submission of the learned Advocate General as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General that the width of prohibition depends on the facts and circumstances of the trade. Complete prohibition is justified because less drastic course is not practical. When 98% of the samples of gutka and pan masala were found having injurious ingredients, it is not possible for the State Government to post inspectors outside each school to prevent sale of pan masala and gutka to school children or to inspect and test each batch of pan masala to find out whether it forms part of 98% or the remaining 2%."
"It is, thus, clear that it is for the food business operators (which would include the petitioners manufacturing gutka and pan masala) to ensure that they do not manufacture any article or food which is unsafe. The Parliament does not require the manufacturers like the petitioners to wait for any declaration to be made by the Food Authority or the Central Government or the State Government to declare any food as injurious to health or unsafe. It is the statutory duty of the manufacturers to ensure that they do not manufacture any article of food which is unsafe. We may, therefore, proceed now to deal with the question of the harmful effects of the ingredients of gutka and pan masala on public health about which ample material has been placed on record by the respondents and the intervenors and which is not seriously disputed at the hearing of interim relief. By an order dated 7 December 2010 in SLP No. 16308 of 2007 (Ankur Gutka v. Asthama Care Society & Ors.), the Supreme Court had directed the Central Government “to undertake a comprehensive analysis and study of the contents of gutka, tobacco, pan masala and similar articles manufactured in the country, and harmful effects of consumption of such articles.” ... Several studies in India have reported a strong association between smokeless tobacco use and oral pre-malignant / pre-cancerous [lesions]. The risk increases with the duration and frequency of smokeless tobacco use. There are consistent results of an increased risk of oral cancer with the use of different forms of smokeless tobacco used in the country. There is also strong association between smokeless tobacco and pancreatic cancer, throat cancer, oesophagal cancer, renal cancer and higher mortality rate. The use of smokeless tobacco also causes non-cancerous diseases/ conditions including nervous system diseases, metabolic abnormalities, reproductive complications and other diseases like gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases."
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 court rejected the gutkha industry's prayer for an interim stay of the State of Maharashtra's gutkha and pan masala ban. Among other things, the court noted that the dangerous effects of smokeless tobacco products on public health justify the ban and found that the this was not a fit case to issue interim relief.
(Heard along with Ghodawat Foods Pvt. Ltd, v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1632 of 2012; Rajnandini Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1633 of 2012; SDD Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1634 of 2012; M/s. Hira Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 1635 of 2012; Rajat Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 7592 of 2012; and M/s. MSS Food Processors v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 8800 of 2012)