2013 Supreme(SC) 1228
G.S.SINGHVI, V.GOPALA GOWDA
Health for Millions – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Judgement Key Points
- The appeals were directed against orders passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6151 of 2005 and 8763 of 2005, which challenged the constitutional validity of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, and the Rules framed thereunder (!) (!) .
- The writ petitioners contended that the 2003 Act was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and that the Rules were ultra vires the Act (!) .
- The petitioners filed applications for a stay of specific Rules (2(c), 2(3), 4, 5(3), and 5(4)) of the 2004 Rules as amended by the 2005 Rules (!) .
- The High Court passed interim orders on 19.12.2005 and 27.03.2006 granting relief to the petitioners due to the non-appearance of the Union of India's counsel (!) (!) .
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in passing interim orders because it did not apply its mind to the necessary ingredients, such as the existence of an arguable case of unconstitutionality, balance of convenience, and public interest (!) .
- The Court emphasized that in matters involving challenges to legislation or rules, courts should be extremely loath to pass interim orders unless the enactment is ex facie unconstitutional (!) .
- The Court noted that the consumption of tobacco products has a huge adverse impact on public health, particularly affecting the poor and younger generations, and unrestricted advertising attracts innocent minds (!) .
- Statistics were cited indicating that 10 lakhs people die annually due to oral and lung cancer caused by tobacco consumption, with projections of 85 lakhs deaths by 2015 (!) .
- The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations regarding the non-appearance of the Union of India's counsel on appointed hearing dates, viewing it as an intriguing lack of sincerity in representing the public cause (!) .
- The appeals were allowed, and the impugned interim orders of the High Court were set aside (!) .
- The Central Government and State Governments were directed to rigorously implement the provisions of the 2003 Act and the 2004 Rules (!) .
ORDER :
1. The application for permission to file the special leave petition is allowed. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals are directed against orders dated 19.12.2005 and 27.03.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 6151 of 2005 titled Sridhar S. Kulkarni and Ors. v. Union of India and Writ Petition No. 8763 of 2005 titled Namdeo Kamathe and Ors. v. Union of India.
4. In the writ petitions filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution, Sridhar S. Kulkarni and Namdeo Kamathe and Ors. challenged the constitutional validity of The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short, 'the 2003 Act') and The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 (for short, 'the 2004 Rules') as amended by The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) (Amendment) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the 2005 Rules'). Their plea is
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
