A decision of the Karnataka High Court in relation to pictorial warnings on cigarettes and other tobacco products has been challenged in Supreme Court..The Supreme Court today adjourned the matter for January 8, given the fact that the copy of the High Court judgment is yet to be made available..In a judgment passed recently, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules)..An appeal has been filed against this verdict by Senior Advocate Umesh Narain, who was a tobacco user before he was diagnosed with tongue cancer that required major surgery in 2011..The 2014 Rules mandate printing of specified heath warnings covering 85 per cent of the principal display area of the products’ packaging..In the appeal filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati, Narain has contended that the 2014 Rules are amendments to the 2008 Rules, which were implemented subsequent to the direction of Supreme Court..“The implementation of Regulations mandating 85% pictorial warning on both sides of Tobacco products was a culmination of an extremely long, cumbersome and excruciating fight by public heath activists, people whose life and family had been ruined by Tobacco…This Hon’ble Court has played a pivotal role in this extremely important journey which saw complete ban of advertising of tobacco products, from the time that tobacco industry used to be at the forefront of all glitzy advertising and sponsorship of mega events to attract the youth. .…industry always attempted to project tobacco products as ‘cool’, ‘macho’, ‘classy’, ‘rebellious’, ‘affluent’, ‘modern’ etc. Graphic and big pictorial warnings bust the myth…”.It is the petitioner’s contention that prior to the 2014 Rules, India ranked very low amongst the countries implementing health warnings on these products..“According to the Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report-2014 issued by Canadian Cancer Society, India was ranked at 136 among 198 countries in terms of prominence of pictorial health warnings on tobacco packaging and is ranked much below countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal Thailand etc.”.Referring to international standards and best practices, the petition contends that graphic health warnings on tobacco product packages are a potent tool to create awareness about the serious and adverse health consequences of smoking, chewing gutkha, etc..Further, the petitioner has also contended that such warnings increase both the awareness of risks and the desire to quit among smokers and prevent non-users from taking up the habit..“It is respectfully submitted that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014, were in force since May 2017 and as per the Global Adult Tobacco Survey India Report 2017, 62% of cigarette smokers, 54% of bidi smokers and 46% of smokeless tobacco users thought of quitting because of warning label…”.The appeal also refers to the Article 32 petition filed by the same petitioner praying for plain packaging of tobacco products on the ground that jazzy covers attracted more customers..“It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.03.2016, has issued Rule in the petition, Umesh Narain Sharma Vs UOI (Writ Petition No.134/2016), filed for implementation of plain packaging of tobacco products in India.”.The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra earlier today. At 3.30 pm, the Bench of the CJI and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul heard the matter and adjourned it for January 8 since the High Court order is not yet available. The respondents agreed not to claim equity in the meanwhile..The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justices BS Patil and BV Nagarathna decided the fate of more than fifty petitions filed by individuals and organisations from across the country..Different high courts had passed conflicting decisions on the issue. While the Rajasthan High Court had directed the immediate implementation of the 2014 amendment and even filed a suo motu contempt petition for the Centre’s failure to do so, the Karnataka High Court had, in December 2015, temporarily stayed the operation of the same..The latter order prompted NGO Health for Millions to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court. A Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy refused to quash the stay, which the High Court would eventually vacate. In a related matter, the same Supreme Court Bench in May 2016 directed that the petitions filed in various parts of the country be dealt with by the Karnataka High Court..Read the order:
A decision of the Karnataka High Court in relation to pictorial warnings on cigarettes and other tobacco products has been challenged in Supreme Court..The Supreme Court today adjourned the matter for January 8, given the fact that the copy of the High Court judgment is yet to be made available..In a judgment passed recently, the Karnataka High Court had quashed the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014 (2014 Rules)..An appeal has been filed against this verdict by Senior Advocate Umesh Narain, who was a tobacco user before he was diagnosed with tongue cancer that required major surgery in 2011..The 2014 Rules mandate printing of specified heath warnings covering 85 per cent of the principal display area of the products’ packaging..In the appeal filed through advocate Aishwarya Bhati, Narain has contended that the 2014 Rules are amendments to the 2008 Rules, which were implemented subsequent to the direction of Supreme Court..“The implementation of Regulations mandating 85% pictorial warning on both sides of Tobacco products was a culmination of an extremely long, cumbersome and excruciating fight by public heath activists, people whose life and family had been ruined by Tobacco…This Hon’ble Court has played a pivotal role in this extremely important journey which saw complete ban of advertising of tobacco products, from the time that tobacco industry used to be at the forefront of all glitzy advertising and sponsorship of mega events to attract the youth. .…industry always attempted to project tobacco products as ‘cool’, ‘macho’, ‘classy’, ‘rebellious’, ‘affluent’, ‘modern’ etc. Graphic and big pictorial warnings bust the myth…”.It is the petitioner’s contention that prior to the 2014 Rules, India ranked very low amongst the countries implementing health warnings on these products..“According to the Cigarette Package Health Warnings: International Status Report-2014 issued by Canadian Cancer Society, India was ranked at 136 among 198 countries in terms of prominence of pictorial health warnings on tobacco packaging and is ranked much below countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal Thailand etc.”.Referring to international standards and best practices, the petition contends that graphic health warnings on tobacco product packages are a potent tool to create awareness about the serious and adverse health consequences of smoking, chewing gutkha, etc..Further, the petitioner has also contended that such warnings increase both the awareness of risks and the desire to quit among smokers and prevent non-users from taking up the habit..“It is respectfully submitted that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Amendment Rules, 2014, were in force since May 2017 and as per the Global Adult Tobacco Survey India Report 2017, 62% of cigarette smokers, 54% of bidi smokers and 46% of smokeless tobacco users thought of quitting because of warning label…”.The appeal also refers to the Article 32 petition filed by the same petitioner praying for plain packaging of tobacco products on the ground that jazzy covers attracted more customers..“It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.03.2016, has issued Rule in the petition, Umesh Narain Sharma Vs UOI (Writ Petition No.134/2016), filed for implementation of plain packaging of tobacco products in India.”.The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra earlier today. At 3.30 pm, the Bench of the CJI and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul heard the matter and adjourned it for January 8 since the High Court order is not yet available. The respondents agreed not to claim equity in the meanwhile..The Karnataka High Court Bench of Justices BS Patil and BV Nagarathna decided the fate of more than fifty petitions filed by individuals and organisations from across the country..Different high courts had passed conflicting decisions on the issue. While the Rajasthan High Court had directed the immediate implementation of the 2014 amendment and even filed a suo motu contempt petition for the Centre’s failure to do so, the Karnataka High Court had, in December 2015, temporarily stayed the operation of the same..The latter order prompted NGO Health for Millions to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court. A Bench of Justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy refused to quash the stay, which the High Court would eventually vacate. In a related matter, the same Supreme Court Bench in May 2016 directed that the petitions filed in various parts of the country be dealt with by the Karnataka High Court..Read the order:
