Central Govt. advisory on banning e-Cigarette, Vapes not binding on States: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court this week held that an advisory passed by the Central government urging states to prohibit the sale and manufacture of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) including e-Cigarette and Vaporizers, is not binding..The single judge Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru passed the order in a petition filed by one Piush Ahluwalia..On August 28 this year, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued an advisory urging States and Union Territories to ensure that ENDS are not sold, manufactured, distributed or advertised, ostensibly to prevent their usage among the youth..The advisory urges the remaining States/UTs to follow the example set by Punjab, Mizoram, Karnataka, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, and Bihar, which have all prohibited the sale and manufacture of ENDS..The petitioner had contended that this advisory is violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it deprives him of exercising his discretion to use e-Cigarettes and other ENDS..It was stated in the petition that ENDS are less harmful than cigarettes and are used by smokers to kick the habit. Further, he had cited a study carried out by Executive Agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England, which indicates that e-Cigarettes are 95% safer than smoking regular cigarettes..After hearing the parties, Justice Bakhru felt that no interference with the advisory was warranted, given that the same is not binding on the States/Union Territories. The order states,.“This Court does not consider that any interference with the said advisory is warranted, as the same is an advisory which is required to be considered by the State Governments/Union Territories. The said advisory is not binding and it would be open to the respective states and union territories to take an informed decision in this regard. In any event, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge any action that may be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories in accordance with law.”.Thus, the Court disposed of the petition..The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan and Adarsh Ramanujan..Read the order below. .Image Credit: Praveen Varma