TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

J. Anbazhagan v. Union of India

J. Anbazhagan, a member of the legislative assembly in the State of Tamil Nadu, filed a writ petition to highlight the illegal manufacture and sale of gutka and pan masala in the state and to urge the High Court of Madras to order an independent investigation into the matter. Mr. Anbazhagan alleged such sales were carried out in collusion with several high dignitaries and bureaucrats, such as central excise officials, central government officials, officials from different state governments, including the Government of Tamil Nadu, councilors of the Chennai Corporation, and officials of the food safety department, among others. The Court observed that it was compelled to take up the case as the issues involved the right to health and directed that the Central Bureau of Investigation investigate the matter, since, among other reasons, central government officials allegedly were involved. In response to arguments made by the respondents, the Court also clarified that the definition of “food” under Section 3(j) of the Food Safety Act includes any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and that the definition undoubtedly was wide enough to include gutka, and other forms of chewable tobacco/nicotine products intended for human consumption. The Court further clarified that India’s omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA, and the Food Safety Act were not in conflict, but were meant to be read in conjunction with each other as COTPA does not contain a non-obstante clause that excludes operation of other laws.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

J.Anbazhagan v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 19335 of 2017, High Court of Judicature at Madras (2018).

  • India
  • Apr 26, 2018
  • High Court of Judicature at Madras

Parties

Plaintiff J. Anbazhagan

Defendant Union of India

Legislation Cited

Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Illicit Trade
Measures relating to illicit trade, including smuggling, illicit manufacturing and counterfeiting. (See FCTC Art. 15)

Substantive Issues

Right to Health
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.
Right to Commerce
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
Right to Judicial Protection
This is the right to access the court system and have the courts enforce your rights.
Right to Life
A violation of the right to not be killed by another person. Arguments may also be similar or tied to right to health arguments.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Criminal Violation
A claim of an infringement of any criminal law.
Tobacco Control Law Violation
A claim of a violation of a tobacco control law or statute.
Encourage Illicit Trade
Regulatory measures may lead to an increase in illegal sales, such as counterfeit products. The industry may also argue that such illicit trade will reduce tobacco tax revenue.
Industry-Perpetrated Fraud
The tobacco industry may have perpetrated a fraud upon the public or the courts by presenting false information or deliberately hiding known-facts.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Sanction / Reprimand
Courts may sanction or reprimand parties for especially egregious behavior during court proceedings.

Type of Tobacco Product

Smokeless tobacco products
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.
1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by