World Lung Foundation South Asia v. New Delhi Municipal Council
A nonprofit organization filed a public interest lawsuit arguing that restaurants are operating hookah bars in violation of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) and the smoke-free rules issued under the Act. The court ordered Delhi municipalities to incorporate into future and existing hotel and restaurant licenses a condition to comply with the COTPA and the corresponding rules and that a breach will result in cancellation of the license. The court directed the municipalities and the police to immediately cancel the license upon finding of a violation of the COTPA or its rules. The court noted that it was not able to rule on whether hookahs that do not contain nicotine or tobacco violate the law or the rules; instead, the court said it is for the appropriate authorities to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the COTPA and corresponding rules are being violated.
World Lung Foundation-South Asia v. New Delhi Municipal Council, W.P.(C) 4579/2012 & CM No. 9509/2012, High Court of New Delhi (2013).
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.
A single or multi-stemmed instrument for vaporizing and smoking flavored tobacco (shisha or sheesha) or other products in which the vapor or smoke is passed through a water basin ‒ often glass-based ‒ before inhalation. Water pipes are known by a variety of names such as hookah, huqqah, nargilah, nargile, arghila, and qalyan.
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.
"After some hearing, the counsel for the Municipalities as well as the counsel for the NRAI state that the petition for the reliefs claimed be allowed. It is the case of NRAI that its members are not violating the provisions of the COTPA or the Rules framed thereunder and if any violation is found, the same be proceeded against in accordance with law. It is further his contention that for the same reason, the NRAI has no objection
if the conditions for complying with the COTPA and the Rules framed thereunder are incorporated in the license issued to its members including the existing licenses and if it is also made a condition of the license that violation shall entail cancellation of the license."
"We are of the opinion that the relief now pressed by the petitioner, of banning of non-nicotine / tobacco hookahs also, for the reason that under the garb thereof COTPA and the Rules framed [thereunder] are being violated, is not only beyond the pleadings in this petition but also not capable of adjudication in these proceedings. It is for the appropriate authorities, upon detecting individual violations, to adjudicate whether the COTPA and the Rules framed thereunder, are being violated or not. Similarly, the reasons given of harmful effect of burning of charcoal or of other dangers from the use of hookahs i.e. of spreading contagious diseases, are also beyond the scope of this petition which is concerned only as aforesaid with enforcement of the COTPA and the Rules framed thereunder. The counsel for the petitioner inspite of our asking, has been unable to show any provision of the COTPA or the Rules framed thereunder, banning charcoal or charcoal products or use of non-tobacco / nicotine hookahs for the reason of the same being capable of spreading contagious diseases. Suffice it is to observe that if the petitioner has any independent right in this regard, it shall be entitled to pursue the same, as this petition is not concerned with the said aspect."
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.
A nonprofit organization filed a public interest lawsuit arguing that restaurants are operating hookah bars in violation of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) and the smoke-free rules issued under the Act. The court ordered Delhi municipalities to incorporate into future and existing hotel and restaurant licenses a condition to comply with the COTPA and the corresponding rules and that a breach will result in cancellation of the license. The court directed the municipalities and the police to immediately cancel the license upon finding of a violation of the COTPA or its rules. The court noted that it was not able to rule on whether hookahs that do not contain nicotine or tobacco violate the law or the rules; instead, the court said it is for the appropriate authorities to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the COTPA and corresponding rules are being violated.