Yadav et al. v. State of Bihar, et al.
Yadav v. State of Bihar, et al., No. 10297, High Court of Judicature at Patna (2012)
- Jul 10, 2012
- High Court of Judicature at Patna
Plaintiff Lal Babu Yadav S/O et al.
- The Commissioner of Food Safety cum Secretary, Health Bihar, Patna
- The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes Bihar, Patna
- The Secretary, Department Of Health New Secretariat, Patna
Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011 Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003
Constitution of India, Article 14
Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Type of Litigation
Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.
Tobacco Control Topics
Excessive Delegation of Authority to the Executive
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
Type of Tobacco Product
Smokeless tobacco products
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
Lal Babu Yadav, a distributor of Paan Masala, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of a law that prohibits the manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of Gutka and Paan Masala containing tobacco or nicotine. Yadav claimed that the ban is contrary to the provisions of India's national tobacco control law, COTPA, and is incomprehensible because the ban does not prohibit other tobacco products that are equally harmful and only is imposed for one year. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that it was proper for the Commissioner of Food Safety to exercise power to impose the ban and within the Commissioner's discretion to choose the tobacco food products included in the ban.