Petitioners manufacture pan masala (a form of smokeless tobacco) and challenged regulations that increased health warnings on the front of pan masala packages to 50% from 3 mm. The Petitioners argued that there was no scientific reason to justify the increase in the health warnings. The Petitioners also alleged that the increased warnings violated their right to display their trademarks on packages. The Respondent argued that the increase in the health warning was crucial for protecting public health and informing the public of the risk associated with the product, including oral cancer. The court relied on the WHO FCTC and the Article 11 Guidelines for Implementation in dismissing the petition and upholding the regulations in the interest of public health.
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
Regulations may infringe on intellectual property rights, which may be protected by international treaties. The industry may argue that bans on "deceptive" packaging that eliminate the use of colors, numbers or trademarks threaten intellectual property rights.
Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. Examples include chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, snuf, snus, gutkha or gutka, and dissolvable tobacco products.
Petitioners manufacture pan masala (a form of smokeless tobacco) and challenged regulations that increased health warnings on the front of pan masala packages to 50% from 3 mm. The Petitioners argued that there was no scientific reason to justify the increase in the health warnings. The Petitioners also alleged that the increased warnings violated their right to display their trademarks on packages. The Respondent argued that the increase in the health warning was crucial for protecting public health and informing the public of the risk associated with the product, including oral cancer. The court relied on the WHO FCTC and the Article 11 Guidelines for Implementation in dismissing the petition and upholding the regulations in the interest of public health.