UBINIG v. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh
Three non-governmental organizations challenged a public notice issued by National Tobacco Control Cell of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare permitting tobacco companies to print health warnings labels on the lower 50% of tobacco product packaging as an interim measure. Petitioners objected to the publication of the rule on procedural grounds. The Court concluded that the public notice was published without any lawful authority and, therefore, was of no legal effect.
There were three related civil petitions for leave to appeal the court's decision. However, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court found no merit in the first and second petitions and thus dismissed those. Regarding the third petition, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed for default. These dismissals are uploaded as 'Related Documents.'
While the initial petition was being considered, the National Tobacco Control Cell decided to withdraw the public notice, instead issuing a new notice requiring health warnings to be printed on the upper 50% of packaging beginning September 19, 2017. However, the industry challenged the rescission in the High Court, preventing it from being implemented as scheduled.
UBINIG v. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 11785 of 2016, High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh (2017).
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
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.
"The inclusion of the words and the expression…is done in clear violation of provision of law and thereafter a decision taken by the National Tobacco Control Cell dated 15.01.2017 have withdrawn the said notification and that also have not been complied with, as such, we are of the view that the public notice dated 16.03.2017 has been published without any legal authority and is of no legal effect as that has been done violation of the provisions of 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.
Three non-governmental organizations challenged a public notice issued by National Tobacco Control Cell of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare permitting tobacco companies to print health warnings labels on the lower 50% of tobacco product packaging as an interim measure. Petitioners objected to the publication of the rule on procedural grounds. The Court concluded that the public notice was published without any lawful authority and, therefore, was of no legal effect.
There were three related civil petitions for leave to appeal the court's decision. However, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court found no merit in the first and second petitions and thus dismissed those. Regarding the third petition, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed for default. These dismissals are uploaded as 'Related Documents.'
While the initial petition was being considered, the National Tobacco Control Cell decided to withdraw the public notice, instead issuing a new notice requiring health warnings to be printed on the upper 50% of packaging beginning September 19, 2017. However, the industry challenged the rescission in the High Court, preventing it from being implemented as scheduled.