Piush Ahluwalia challenged the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare's August 28, 2018 ENDS advisory. The court dismissed the petition with the observation that the advisory is not binding.
Piush Ahluwalia vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 12163/2018, High Court of Delhi (2018).
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.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
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 petitioner contends that the said advisory is violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it deprives the petitioner from exercising its discretion to use the aforesaid products. According to the petitioner, the said products are less harmful than cigarettes and are used by smokers to quit the habit of smoking. The petitioner has also referred to the study carried out by Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England, which indicates that e-cigarettes are 95% safer than smoking Paper Roled Cigarettes (PRCs). This Court does not consider that any interference with the said advisory is warranted, as the same is an advisory which is required to be considered by the State Governments/Union Territories. The said advisory is not binding and it would be open to the respective states and union territories to take an informed decision in this regard. In any event, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge any action that may be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories in accordance with law."
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.
Piush Ahluwalia challenged the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare's August 28, 2018 ENDS advisory. The court dismissed the petition with the observation that the advisory is not binding.