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.
Yadav v. State of Bihar, et al., No. 10297, High Court of Judicature at Patna (2012)
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.
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
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.
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.
"It is thus quite evident that the Commissioner of Food Safety has issued the impugned order dated 30.5.2012, Annexure-1 with reference to the provisions of Act 34 of 2006 and Regulations, 2011 framed thereunder providing for total ban on manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of Gutka and Paan Masala containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredients within the State of Bihar. It was within the discretion of the Commissioner of Food Safety to choose the tobacco food products for being brought under the purview of ban on manufacture, storage and sale or distribution and he having exercised his power confining the ban to Gutka and Paan Masala containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredient, no error can be found in exercise of power by the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 92 read with Section 26 of the Act 34 of 2006 and Regulation 2.3.4 of the Restrictions, 2011 providing for ban on manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of Gutka and Paan Masala containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredient under the impugned order dated 30.5.2012, Annexure-1, validity whereof, in my opinion, has to be upheld."
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.
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.