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).
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Substantive Issues
None
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.
"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."
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 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.