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 petitioners brought a case to enforce regulations which required graphic health warnings for cigarette packs to cover 85%. At the hearing, the petitioners also argued that the health warnings were not being rotated as required by the Cigarette (Printing of Warning) Rules, 2009.
The case was dismissed by the court as “infructuous” as, after the regulations were issued, the federal government issued a new regulation (SRO 127/2017) which required the graphic health warning size to be 60% instead of 85%, and that regulation had already been implemented.
The court declined to consider the petitioners' argument about rotations because it had not been raised in the petitions and because the frequency of changing the warning was for the federal government to determine.