SC sets aside order cancelling larger tobacco health warnings on packets

Also Read

Odisha chase table toppers in KITG

35 minutes ago

Odisha day celebrated at Kotia

44 minutes ago

reuters
New Delhi, Jan 8: The Supreme Court Monday put on hold a lower court’s order that quashed central government rules mandating larger health warnings on tobacco packages, in a setback for the country’s $11 billion tobacco industry.
The High Court of Karnataka last month struck down Union government rules requiring 85 percent of a tobacco pack’s surface to be covered in health warnings, up from 20 per cent earlier. The rules had been in force since 2016.
The Supreme Court, which heard petitions brought forward by tobacco-control activists, stayed the Karnataka court’s order Monday, citing the need to protect the health of citizens.
“Health of a citizen has primacy and he or she should be aware of that which can affect or deteriorate the condition of health,” the Supreme Court said in its 13-page order.
“Deterioration may be a milder word and, therefore, in all possibility the expression ‘destruction of health’ is apposite.”
The court’s decision is a blow to cigarette makers such as India’s ITC Ltd and Philip Morris International Inc’s Indian partner, Godfrey Phillips India Ltd, whose representatives call the rules extreme. In protest at the health warning measures, the industry briefly shut its factories across the country in 2016 and filed dozens of legal cases.
Monday, both health ministry officials and tobacco industry executives were in attendance inside a packed courtroom to hear the proceedings which lasted for about 40 minutes. The three judges took time to look over examples of health warning pictures used on cigarette packs.
Kapil Sibal, who argued for the industry, urged the court to reduce the size of tobacco pack warnings. At one point, he cited the absence of health warnings on a glass of whisky to argue against such displays on tobacco products.
The attorney general of India, K K Venugopal, defended the government’s stringent rules, saying they were “one of the most progressive” steps to protect the health of people.
The case will next be heard on March 12.