Health for Millions vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 1228

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
Health for Millions - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - Respondents
C.A. Nos. 5912-5913 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 413-414 of 2013) with C.A. Nos. 5914-5915 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13222-13223 of 2013)
Decided On: 22.07.2013

Headnote:
Tobacco Products Act, 2003 - Challenged the constitutional validity – Claim consumption – Appeals are directed against orders - In some of the connected matters service is incomplete therefore petitions cannot be taken up for final hearing - In this view of matter interim order granted earlier in all these petitions to continue till final disposal of petitions while granting leave this Court directed consideration of interim relief after six weeks granting adequate time to Respondents to file reply - Respondent - Union of India was duly represented before this Court inspire of opportunity granted none appears today hence ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause(d). List the matter – Held, A reading of impugned orders leaves no manner of doubt that while granting interim relief to writ Petitioners High Court did not apply its mind to any of ingredients existence of which is sine qua non for such orders - High Court overlooked fact that consumption of tobacco and tobacco products has huge adverse impact on health of public at large and particularly poor and weaker sections of society which are largest consumers of such products and that unrestricted advertisement of these produces will attract younger generation and innocent minds who are not aware of grave and adverse consequences of consuming such products - Learned Counsel for Appellants pointed out that as on people die every year due to oral and lung cancer caused by consumption of tobacco and tobacco products - They further pointed out that as per the study conducted by National Institute of Health and Family Welfare people are likely to die annually due to oral and lung cancer caused by consumption of tobacco and tobacco products – Court have no doubt that Central Government and the State Governments across country are alive to serious and grave consequences of advertising tobacco and various products manufactured by using tobacco - They know that consumption of these products will result in rapid increase in number of cancer patients and huge proportion of Budget earmarked for health of the common man will have to be used for treating the patients of cancer While disposing of the appeals, we consider it necessary to express our serious reservations and regret about the manner in which concerned officers of the Union of India dealt with the serious issue involving challenge to the validity of law enacted by Parliament and the rules framed there under - Non-appearance of counsel engaged by Union of India on dates appointed for hearing case is quite intriguing - Prima facie it gives an impression that counsel engaged by Union of India had some other idea and therefore he refrained from representing cause not only of its client but people of India – Court are sure that Government of India will take remedial measure and ensure that only those advocates are engaged by it who are serious and sincere in representing cause of public before Courts – Appeal dismissed

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 that the 2003 Act is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and the Rules are ultra vires the provisions of the 2003 Act.

5. Along with the writ petitions, Sridhar S. Kulkarni and Namdeo Kamathe and Ors. filed applications for stay of Rules 2(c), 2(3), 4, 5(3) and 5(4) of the 2004 Rules, as amended by the 2005 Rules.

6. On 19.12.2005, the Division Bench of the High Court passed separate interim orders in both the cases. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 6151/2005 reads as under:

On 3rd October, 2005 while granting leave this Court directed consideration of the interim relief after six weeks granting adequate time to the Respondents to file reply. The Respondent - Union of India was duly represented before this Court, inspite of the opportunity granted none appears today hence ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause(d). List the matter on 10th January, 2006.

7. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 8763/2005 is also reproduced below:

Heard.

Rule.

In view of the fact that interim relief is granted in writ petition No. 6151 of 2005 no separate order granting interim relief is necessary since operation of the rules itself is stayed. Therefore, interim relief in same terms. Issue notice, returnable on 10th January, 2006.

8. On the next date of effective hearing, i.e., 27.3.2006 also no one appeared on behalf of the Union of India. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court passed the following order.

In some of the connected matters service is incomplete, therefore, the petitions cannot be taken up for final hearing. In this view of the matter, the interim order granted earlier in all these petitions to continue till the final disposal of the petitions.

9. Subsequently, the Union of India is said to have applied for vacating the interim order but did not pursue the matter and the cases do not appear of have been listed before the High Court for hearing for the next six years. We have been informed that the petitions filed by the Union of India for transfer of the cases from Bombay High Court were dismissed by this Court.

10. The Appellant in the first case, i.e., Health for Millions, which is a public charitable trust and has been working since 1991 for making public aware about general health problems and promotion of knowledge of products, including tobacco, affecting the health of the common man has questioned the orders passed by the High Court on the ground that the same are contrary to the settled principles of law and are highly detrimental to larger public good. It has pleaded that the 2003 Act was enacted by Parliament keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Murli S. Deora v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 765 and the rules have been framed for giving effect to the objects of the main Act. The Appellant has also relied upo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document