Mahesh Bhatt and Kasturi and Sons v. Union of India
A prominent film director and a newspaper publisher sued the Indian government challenging elements of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act of 2003 and the Rules that were issued to implement the Act, specifically the sections prohibiting tobacco advertising in print or electronic media or the use of tobacco in films. In this decision, the court found that the government had the authority to enact the Act and that the Rules were a proper implementation of the Act. The court also found that the Rules prohibiting direct and indirect tobacco advertising do not violate the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the print media to prevent publication of tobacco brand names and logos in support of the larger public interest and to promote the right to health and healthy life. As for the limits on the display and use of tobacco in films, the court ruled that the various exceptions to the ban (e.g., older or foreign films, historical depictions of tobacco use, or when supported by a strong editorial justification) meant that there was not a complete ban. Therefore, the court found that the Rules do not violate the constitutional protections for freedom of speech and the right to live a healthy life.
Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 18761 and 23716/2005 and 7410-11/2006, High Court of Delhi (2008).
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.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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.
"Commercial advertisements are entitled to limited protection under Article 19(1)(a)of the Constitution if they are in public interest. Commercial advertisements of tobacco products are not expressions protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Commercial advertisements will include indirect or surrogate advertisements which promote and encourage use of tobacco products. However, commercial advertisements are different and distinct from news. The purpose and object behind news is to disseminate information, thoughts and ideas. Pre-dominant nature and character of the article, picture, etc, will determine whether it is a commercial advertisement or a news item/picture."
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.
A prominent film director and a newspaper publisher sued the Indian government challenging elements of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act of 2003 and the Rules that were issued to implement the Act, specifically the sections prohibiting tobacco advertising in print or electronic media or the use of tobacco in films. In this decision, the court found that the government had the authority to enact the Act and that the Rules were a proper implementation of the Act. The court also found that the Rules prohibiting direct and indirect tobacco advertising do not violate the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the print media to prevent publication of tobacco brand names and logos in support of the larger public interest and to promote the right to health and healthy life. As for the limits on the display and use of tobacco in films, the court ruled that the various exceptions to the ban (e.g., older or foreign films, historical depictions of tobacco use, or when supported by a strong editorial justification) meant that there was not a complete ban. Therefore, the court found that the Rules do not violate the constitutional protections for freedom of speech and the right to live a healthy life.