The appellant challenged the court's September 20, 2023 judgment and alleged that the judge failed to consider the arguments set forth in the writ petition. The Appellate Court agreed with the previous judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court also expunged two paragraphs of the judgment dated September 20, 2023 after the appellant tendered an unconditional apology for filing the writ petition and appeal. In his apology, the appellant confirmed that he does not promote or support tobacco consumption and has never represented the tobacco industry. Thereby, the rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theatres, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services were upheld.
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.
The appellant challenged the court's September 20, 2023 judgment and alleged that the judge failed to consider the arguments set forth in the writ petition. The Appellate Court agreed with the previous judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court also expunged two paragraphs of the judgment dated September 20, 2023 after the appellant tendered an unconditional apology for filing the writ petition and appeal. In his apology, the appellant confirmed that he does not promote or support tobacco consumption and has never represented the tobacco industry. Thereby, the rules requiring health warnings and disclaimers to be displayed during films shown at movie theatres, on television, and on over-the-top (OTT) streaming services were upheld.