M/S R.K. Products Company v. Union of India et al.
RK Products filed a writ challenging the Indian government and its ministries from enforcing the ban on gutkha or pan mashala containing tobacco. The writ asserts that the regulations regarding gutkha or pan mashala under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 are invalid because neither gutkha nor pan masaha are food and that the national Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA) should regulate tobacco products. RK Products, a business that stocked and sold gutkha prior to the regulations, seeks relief from the regulations while the litigation is ongoing. The court gives the government three options: 1) to allow RK to move their stock to a state which does not have the regulations, 2) to account for RK’s stock and seal it, or 3) to account for the stock and require a promise from RK not to sell their products during the case proceedings.
M/S R.K. Products Company v. Union of India et al. Patna High Court CWJC No.12871 of 2012 (2) dt.20-07-2012
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.
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to ban imposed by the impugned notification, as contained in Annexure2, large quantity of Gutkha and Pan Mashala have been stacked up in the godown of petitioner. He submits that now, in view of the ban, neither petitioner-firm can sell it nor it can transport it elsewhere outside the State. Hence, during the pendency of this application, petitioner should not be harassed for stocking the materials.
Since petitioner claims that it had stocked the materials before imposition of ban, it is advisable for the respondents to either allow the petitioner to transport the materials somewhere outside the State where ban is not operating or to get stock verification done and to seal the godown till further orders of the Court or any competent authority. Alternatively, if the respondents so consider it appropriate, after stock verification, they may obtain an undertaking from the petitioner that it shall not sell the articles in open market during the pendency of this application."
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.
RK Products filed a writ challenging the Indian government and its ministries from enforcing the ban on gutkha or pan mashala containing tobacco. The writ asserts that the regulations regarding gutkha or pan mashala under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 are invalid because neither gutkha nor pan masaha are food and that the national Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 (COTPA) should regulate tobacco products. RK Products, a business that stocked and sold gutkha prior to the regulations, seeks relief from the regulations while the litigation is ongoing. The court gives the government three options: 1) to allow RK to move their stock to a state which does not have the regulations, 2) to account for RK’s stock and seal it, or 3) to account for the stock and require a promise from RK not to sell their products during the case proceedings.