Jaising, Singhvi appear as Delhi government seeks urgent hearing in tobacco ban

The Delhi Government today sought the urgent hearing of the a petition challenging the ban imposed by the State Government on sale of chewable tobacco from March last year..The Delhi High Court had stayed the notification in April, following the petition filed by tobacco manufacturers, and prohibited the Delhi government from taking ‘coercive action’ till the next date of hearing..The government had then approached the Court in May for vacation of stay with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing that, ‘the ban had been imposed for reasons of public health and interest.’ However, no interim relief was granted..Today when the matter came up for hearing before Justice Manmohan, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Petitioner and argued that there was a comprehensive statute to regulate all aspects relating to tobacco i.e. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act [COTPA]. It was Singhvi’s argument that, hence, the Delhi Govt’s notification was ultra-vires. .He also submitted that since tobacco was not a food product, the State government had no power to issue such a notification under the Food Safety and Standards Act..“The Central Government rightly evinces interest to regulate all aspects of tobacco through COTPA. The statute has a carefully calibrated ban on tobacco and COTPA, being a special legislation must prior or later to its enacment, prevail over any other Act.”.After hearing Singhvi’s arguments, the Bench directed all parties to file their written submissions. However when the State sought an urgent hearing as the notification was ‘time-bound’, the Bench wanted to know the urgency in the issue..Responding to this, Jaising told the Court that there was ‘extreme urgency’ in the matter as the issue pertained to consumer safety..“The life of the notification is only for a year and they have already obtained a stay. We have been repeatedly approaching the Court for vacation of stay and on each hearing, the petitioners have urged for the matter to be heard finally. That is why the matter has been pending for a long time and if the notification expires, we would be back to square one.” .Jaising also urged that it was a crucial issue which required legal clarity and ‘invited a judgment’; before pointing out to the Bench that similar notifications had been issued in various other states but none of the High Courts had stayed the notifications, barring Delhi..The parties have been directed to file their written submissions before March 11, when the case will be heard next.