Tobacco Institute of India v. Union of India

The Tobacco Institute of India, a tobacco product retailer, a tobacco farmer, and a current smoker challenged the legality (as it relates to cigarettes) of an October 2014 Ministry of Health notification establishing pack warnings on 85% of both sides of tobacco product packaging.  The court noted that implementation of the pack warnings has been stayed in a matter concerning beedi packaging and that judicial discipline requires that a stay be granted here due to the similarity of the petitions.  Without ruling on the merits of the case, the court stayed the implementation of the pack warnings notification in a preliminary order.

Tobacco Institute of India et al., W.P. 4470/2015, 56789/2014,59460/2014,59587/2014, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (2016).

  • India
  • Jan 14, 2016
  • High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Parties

Plaintiff

  • B. Shivanna
  • G.R. Venkatesh Murthy
  • Sri Javare Gowda
  • Tobacco Institute of India

Defendant

  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Ministry of Commerce and Industry
  • Ministry of Finance
  • Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
  • Ministry of Labour and Employment
  • Union of India

Third Party

  • Cancer Patients Aid Association

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

None

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Undisputedly, the learned Single Judge has granted stay of the very notification that is; sought to be challenged in the present writ petitions. The said order was modified by restricting it only so far petitioners are concerned. It pertains to manufacture of beedis and the present writ petitions pertain to manufacture of cigarettes. Even though beedis and cigarettes cannot be considered as identical, but they are similar in nature, since both are derivates of tobacco and are governed by the very impugned notification. Therefore, the learned single Judge having considered the plea of the petitioners granted an interim order staying the notification. Judicial discipline demands that an interim order granted in similar petitions, requires to be granted to the present writ petitioners also similar petitioners, deserve similar orders."