The Lion Brewery Ceylon Ltd., et al. v. Hon. Attorney General, et al.

The leading manufacturers/producers of tobacco and alcohol products sued the Attorney General and others challenging the constitutionality of the “National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol” Bill.  The Bill advises the government on the implementation of the Tobacco and Alcohol Policy and recommends measures to minimize harm and eliminate the illicit trade arising from the consumption of tobacco and alcohol products. The Bill also creates new offences, particularly with regard to the sale of tobacco and alcohol products and the promotion of such sale by means of advertising and sponsorship of sports and cultural events.  The manufacturers argue that the production and sale of tobacco and alcohol, directly affected by the Bill, are lawful trades unlike the illicit trade in alcohol and drugs and that since the lawful trade is sought to be restricted in the manner set out in the Bill, it is discriminatory and denies them the freedom of expression and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court found that specific provisions of the legislation were inconsistent with the Constitution but, taken as a whole, the legislation is valid.  The Court noted that it is the duty of the State to take such measures as envisaged in the Bill in the face of the proven risk to public health resulting from the use/consumption of tobacco and alcohol products.

The Lion Brewery Ceylon Ltd., et al. v. Hon. Attorney General, et al., S.C. (S.D) Nos. 13-22/05, Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (2006)

  • Sri Lanka
  • Jan 16, 2006
  • Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Cargills (Ceylon) Ltd., Colombo 01
  • Ceylon Tobacco Co. Ltd., Colombo 15
  • Ceylon Tobacco Co. Ltd., Distributors’Association, Colombo 02
  • Distilleries Co. of Sri Lanka Ltd., Colombo 10
  • I.D. Lanka Ltd., Kotalawela, Kaduwela
  • Kudagoda Bopearachchige Priyantha Saman Kumara, New Saman Hotel & Bakery, Malabe
  • Orient Lanka Ltd., Colombo 01
  • R.A.S. Wijesekera, Wilegoda, Kalutara North
  • The Lion Brewery Ceylon Ltd., Colombo 01

Defendant

  • Hon. Attorney General
  • Ven. (Dr) Omalpe Sobhitha Thero

Third Party

  • Alcohol & Drug Information Centre, Colombo 05.
  • Green Movement of Sri Lanka Ltd, Colombo 10
  • I.O.G.T. Regional Council for South East Asia, Colombo 05
  • J.R.De Crusz, Dehiwela
  • Lawyers for Human Rights & Development, Colombo 08
  • Life Mathdravya Nivarana Vyaparaya, Kandy
  • Rev. Charles N. Jansz, President, Dutch Reformed Church in Sri Lanka
  • Rev. Kingsley Perera, Sri Lanka Baptist Sangamaya, Colombo 08
  • Rev. W.P. Ebenezer Joseph, President, Methodist Church of Sri Lanka,
  • Rt. Rev. Duleep de Chickera, Bishop of Colombo
  • Rt. Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe, Bishop of Kurunegala,
  • Sri Lanka Amadyapa Samitha Sammelanaya, Colombo 05
  • Sri Lanka Temperance Association, Colombo 11
  • Swarna Hansa Foundation, Battaramulla

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The two fold contention in our view cannot overcome the basic premise that the consumption or use of tobacco and alcohol are harmful to health. Whether it is in the guise of promoting a choice or making an informed decision of what should be purchased, since the end result is going to be harmful to public health the restriction in our view would in any event be permissible in terms of Article 15(7) of the Constitution. Further, on the question whether a prohibition on the advertisement of any article, could per se constitute a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, it is relevant to cite the findings of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs Union of IndiaAIR 1960 S.C page 544. In this case it was held that a total prohibition on advertisement imposed by the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act was not inconsistent with the corresponding Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It was held that if the prohibition merely deprives a trader from commending his wares it would not fall within the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India adopted a useful observation made by Justice Mc.Kenna in John. W.Rast vs Van Deman & Lawis Co., 1915 60 U.S.Lawyers Ed.679 at 690 where it was stated as follows: "Advertising is merely identification, and description appraising of quality and place. It has no other object than to draw attention to the article to be sold and the acquisition of the article to be sold constitutes the only inducement to its purchase." It was further held that advertising does not come within the objective of the freedom of speech which is intended to safeguard the natural right of an organized freedom loving society to impart and acquire information about a matter of common interest. We are inclined to accept this statement as to the ambit of the freedom of speech and expression and hold that advertising does not come within its scope."